2020 (3) TMI 380 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - refund was claimed on the ground that the same was not payable in terms of Notification No. 21/2012-cus dated 17.03.2012 - refund rejected on the ground of time limitation. The appellants contention is that the refund cannot be said to time barred, for the reason that they have filed an application for rectification of the Bill of Entry under Section 149 read with Section 154 of Customs Act, 1962, and the same has not been disposed of which compelled the appellant to file the refund claim. HELD THAT - Considering the application under Section 149 the refund cannot be held as time barred. The department has not given any response to their application under Section 149 which is directly related to the present refund matter - In this position, the department must first dispose of the application of the appellant filed under Section 149 read with Section 154 and thereafter, should reprocess the refund claim. Matter remanded to the adjudication authority to first decide the application under Section149, thereafter, reprocess the refund claim - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim rejection on grounds of being time-barred

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim for Special Additional Duty paid at the time of assessment of Bill of Entry. The Learned Commission (Appeals) upheld the rejection on the basis of being time-barred. The appellant argued that they had applied for rectification of the Bill of Entry under Section 149 and Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, but received no response from the department. Therefore, they filed the refund application. The appellant contended that since their application for rectification had not been disposed of, the refund claim should not be considered time-barred. The department, represented by the Learned Superintendent, reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) found merit in the appellant's argument. It was noted that the appellant's application for rectification under Section 149 and Section 154 was directly related to the refund matter, and the department had not responded to it. Consequently, the Hon'ble Member concluded that the department should first dispose of the rectification application before reprocessing the refund claim. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the adjudication authority for a decision on the Section 149 application and subsequent reprocessing of the refund claim. The appeal was allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.