2020 (4) TMI 45 - AT - Customs

Refund of Customs Duty - amount paid under protest - time limitation - HELD THAT - The amount under dispute has been paid by the appellant under protest during the course of investigation. Further, the order of this Tribunal dated 03.03.2011 was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon ble High Court and before the decision of the Hon ble High Court was delivered, the refund claim was filed by the appellant. In that circumstances, how can be said that the refund claim filed by the appellant is barred by limitation. In fact, the refund claim filed by the appellant before the limitation starts. Moreover, the refund claim filed by the appellant of the amount which has paid under protest, and not the duty, the limitation is not applicable - the refund claim is to be sanctioned to the appellant within a period of fifteen days on receipt of the copy of this order. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection as barred by limitation.

Analysis:
The appellant imported a BMW car in 2003 and paid a sum under protest during a DRI investigation in 2005. A show cause notice for violation was issued in 2006, leading to a Tribunal decision in favor of the appellant in 2011. Subsequently, the appellant filed a refund claim in 2012, which was dismissed as time-barred in 2016 and affirmed by the Commissioner in 2018. The appellant contended that the refund claim was filed before the limitation period started, considering the payment was made under protest during investigation. The Member (Judicial) agreed, emphasizing that the refund was for the amount paid under protest, not the duty itself, making the limitation inapplicable. The rejection based on limitation was deemed impermissible, and the refund claim was ordered to be sanctioned within fifteen days.

This judgment primarily deals with the issue of whether a refund claim can be rejected as time-barred when the amount was paid under protest during an investigation. The Member (Judicial) highlighted that the refund was sought for the amount paid under protest, not the duty, making the limitation inapplicable. The rejection of the refund claim based on limitation was deemed legally impermissible, and the appellant was directed to receive the refund within a specified timeframe. The decision underscores the importance of considering the specific circumstances of the payment and the nature of the refund claim in determining the applicability of limitation periods in such cases.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the refund claim filed by the appellant for the amount paid under protest during an investigation was wrongly rejected as time-barred. Emphasizing that the limitation does not apply to refunds for amounts paid under protest, the Member (Judicial) directed the authorities to sanction the refund to the appellant promptly. This decision serves as a reminder of the legal principles governing refund claims related to payments made under protest and highlights the necessity of a thorough consideration of the circumstances surrounding such claims before rejecting them on grounds of limitation.