2020 (3) TMI 648 - AT - Customs

Interest on delayed refunds - time limitation - HELD THAT - The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the interest on the refund in respect of Order-in-Original dated 23.2.2019. The appeals in respect of Order-in-Original dated 20.2.2019 and 22.2.2019 requesting for grant of interest for delayed refund has been rejected of the ground of limitation. On perusal of the facts, it is seen that there is a delay of three days and one day in filing the appeals before Commissioner (Appeals). Since the appellant did not file a petition for condonation of delay, the same was not considered. In the letter issued by department dated 13.12.2019, it is seen that the appellants have received the Order-in-Original dated 22.2.2019 only on 28.2.2019. Taking note of the fact that the other Order-in-Original relating to 22.2.2019 was also received on 28.2.2019, it can be well inferred that the contention of the appellant that all the three orders were received on 28.2.2019 is true and acceptable. Further, the department has not been able to show any proof to establish that they have received the orders prior to 28.2.2019. When computed from the date of 28.2.2019, the appeal is well within time. The rejection of these appeals as being time-barred is therefore without any legal basis. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of SAD as per Notification No. 102/2007.
2. Rejection of interest for delayed refund.
3. Time-barred appeals before Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The appellants filed refund claims for SAD as per Notification No. 102/2007, which were initially rejected by the original authority but later allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The department appealed to the Tribunal, which dismissed their appeals, making the issue of refund final. However, the original authority did not grant interest for the delayed refund, leading to the appellant filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) for three refund claims.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) granted interest for one appeal related to an Order-in-Original dated 23.2.2019 but rejected the appeals concerning Orders-in-Original dated 20.2.2019 and 22.2.2019 as time-barred due to delays of three days and one day, respectively, in filing the appeals. The appellant argued that they received all orders on 28.2.2019 and had requested proof from the department, which confirmed the receipt date for one order but not for the other. The appellant contended that all appeals were filed within the prescribed time limit and should not be considered time-barred.

3. The department argued that the appellant failed to prove the receipt date of the orders and did not file for condonation of delay within the allowable period. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed interest for one order received on 28.2.2019, indicating that all three orders were likely received on the same date. As the department could not provide evidence of earlier receipt, the appeals were considered timely from 28.2.2019. Consequently, the rejection of appeals as time-barred lacked legal basis, and the impugned orders related to Orders-in-Original dated 20.2.2019 and 22.2.2019 were set aside, allowing the appeals with any consequential relief.