9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 176 - HC - CustomsRefund of amount deposited with the Customs Authorities - time limitation for claiming refund - Section 27 of the Customs Act - HELD THAT - In the instant case, it is true that Appellate Commissioner rendered its decision in favour of petitioner on 4.12.2013 and one can say that the petitioner was entitled to seek refund based thereupon. However, it deserves to be noted that the appeal challenging the said order was preferred by the Department before the CESTAT and CESTAT rendered its decision on 8.9.2014. The said order dated 8.9.2014 was received by the petitioner, as per say of petitioner and it has not been disputed, on 29.9.2014 - Therefore, within one year therefrom, the refund claim was made on 9.9.2015. Though the actual date of application is 8.8.2015 but the receipt stamp indicates the date of 9.9.2015 and accordingly, it was said to have filed within the time limit prescribed. When the petitioner s claim that it was not liable to pay duty on the quantum mentioned in the bill of landing as the actual quantity landed was lesser than the quantity mentioned in the bill of landing, was justified and upheld the difference in duty levied, was required to be refunded, the quantity which actual landed, was the duty on quantity laded and therefore, the petitioner's contention was upheld by the Appellate Commissioner under it's order dated 4.12.2013 and confirmed by the CESTAT under its order dated 8.,09.2014. Therefore, there was no justified reason whatsoever for denying the refund to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to receive refund as per his claim contained in his application dated 8.8.2015 in accordance with law and the same shall be granted to the petitioner within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court - Petition allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the dismissal of the appeal for refund claim. 2. Interpretation of the limitation period under Section 27 of the Customs Act. 3. Validity of the refund claim based on the finality of the appellate decision. 4. Application of legal precedents and statutory provisions to the refund claim. Detailed Analysis: 1. Challenge to the Dismissal of the Appeal for Refund Claim: The petitioner approached the High Court challenging the dismissal of their appeal by the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The petitioner sought a writ of Certiorari to quash the Tribunal's order dated 01.08.2018, which upheld the rejection of their refund claim by the customs authorities. 2. Interpretation of the Limitation Period under Section 27 of the Customs Act: The core issue revolved around whether the refund claim was filed within the prescribed limitation period under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The petitioner argued that the limitation period should commence from the date they received the final order of the CESTAT, which was 29.09.2014. They contended that their refund application, filed on 09.09.2015, was within the one-year limitation period. 3. Validity of the Refund Claim Based on the Finality of the Appellate Decision: The petitioner argued that the limitation period should start from the date the CESTAT's order was received, as the refund claim could only be validly made after the final appellate decision. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in Dena Snuff (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, which held that the cause of action for refund arises only after the final dispute regarding the classification list is settled by the highest appellate authority. 4. Application of Legal Precedents and Statutory Provisions to the Refund Claim: The petitioner relied on several legal precedents, including the decisions in Vikas Global One Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs and Shakun Overseas Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cus. (Appeals), to support their contention that the limitation period should start from the date of receipt of the final appellate order. They also referenced Sections 131A and 153 of the Customs Act, which provide for the exclusion of time taken for obtaining a copy of the order and the requirement for the order to be served on the party. Court's Analysis and Conclusion: The Court examined the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act and the relevant legal precedents. It noted that the petitioner received the CESTAT's order on 29.09.2014 and filed the refund application on 09.09.2015, within the one-year limitation period. The Court held that the limitation period should be computed from the date of receipt of the final appellate order, as per the principles laid down in the Dena Snuff case and the statutory provisions. The Court concluded that the petitioner's refund claim was filed within the prescribed time limit and that the rejection of the refund claim by the customs authorities and the Tribunal was erroneous. The Court quashed the Tribunal's order and directed the customs authorities to process the refund claim within four months. Final Judgment: The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute to the extent that the petitioner was entitled to receive the refund as claimed. The Court rejected the respondent's request for a stay of the order, granting them four months to process the refund claim.
|
