2021 (6) TMI 747 - AT - Customs

Refund of the excess payment made - rejection on the ground that the payment towards two bills of entry fall under the jurisdiction of ACC, Bangalore as the imports were made from ACC, Bangalore in respect of two said bills of entry - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the appellant has made payment twice on account of the technical problem in ICEGATE and the fact of double payment was also confirmed from PAO, New Delhi which confirms double payment towards certain bills of entry for which the refund was filed. Further, the refund application was filed with the ICD, Bangalore which has partly allowed the refund but rejected the refund of ₹ 10,49,491/- on the ground that the payment towards two bills of entry fall under the jurisdiction of ACC, Bangalore as the imports were made from ACC, Bangalore. In the additional submissions filed by the appellant, the appellant has also submitted that the bills of entry with reference to which the amounts have been paid twice were provisionally assessed during the relevant point of time due to pendency of SVB proceedings and those bills of entry were finally assessed by closure of provisional duty Bond by ACC, Bangalore in 2019 and communicated to the appellant on 04.01.2019 and has also submitted the documentary proof of final assessment of the said bill of entry and as per Section 27(1B)(c) where any duty is paid provisionally under Section 18, the limitation of one year shall be computed from the date of assessment of duty after the final assessment. If the Department consider the same as duty even then the period of one year will start from 04.01.2019 and the refund filed by the appellant is found to be within time. The impugned order rejecting the refund on time bar is not sustainable in law - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection on the grounds of time bar and jurisdiction.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) order rejecting the appellant's refund claim. The appellant had paid double the amount towards certain bill of entries due to ICEGATE/EDI problem and sought a refund. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund) ICD, Bangalore partially allowed the refund but rejected a portion, stating it fell under ACC, Bangalore's jurisdiction. The appellant requested the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refund) ACC, Bangalore for the rejected refund. The original authority rejected the claim as time-barred, leading to the appeal. The appellant argued that the refund was for excess payment, not duty, and cited Customs Act provisions regarding limitation periods.

The appellant contended that the refund denial based on time bar lacked legal merit, emphasizing the double payment issue due to ICEGATE problem. The appellant highlighted that the original authority wrongly rejected the refund for specific bills of entry, even though the duty was provisionally assessed due to SVB proceedings. The appellant referenced Customs Act Section 27(1B) for the computation of the limitation period. The appellant also criticized the authorities for relying on Regulations without issuing a Deficiency Memo, as required by law.

The Tribunal noted the appellant's timely filing of the refund application with ICD, Bangalore and the lack of a Deficiency Memo. The Tribunal emphasized that the refund claim was within time and criticized the authorities for rejecting it solely on time bar grounds. The Tribunal cited precedents like Singh International and Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. to support the appellant's position. The Tribunal found the rejection of the refund on time bar unsustainable in law and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the impugned order, highlighting the incorrect rejection of the refund claim based on time bar and jurisdictional issues. The Tribunal emphasized the appellant's timely filing, the double payment issue, and legal provisions governing refund claims. By relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the refund rejection was unjustified and granted relief to the appellant.