2022 (11) TMI 510 - AT - Customs

Relevant date for filing of Refund - Recovery of the erroneous refund along with interest - recovery of erroneous refund sought on the ground that the refund claim filed by the appellant was time barred as the date of filing of refund claim was taken as 08.11.2017 - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the appellant had indeed submitted their refund claim vide letter dated 03.08.2016 which had been received by the office on 30.08.2016. Though the refund was returned for some query for want of documents and subsequently the appellant had resubmitted the same claim on 08.11.2017, the date of filing of refund claim shall be taken as 30.08.2016 not 08.11.2017, accordingly, the refund was filed well within the time. It is settled that even if the refund claim is filed well within the time and the same is returned for want of clarification or documents and the claim was resubmitted, the date of filing the refund application is taken as the date of first filing the refund claim and not the date on which the claim was resubmitted. In the present case also there is no dispute that the first time refund claim was filed on 30.08.2016 which was well within the stipulated time. The refund filed by the appellant is not hit by limitation - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Dispute over the date of filing the refund claim
- Time-barred refund claim leading to recovery of erroneous refund

Issue 1: Dispute over the date of filing the refund claim

The appellant filed a refund claim due to double customs duty payment caused by a technical glitch in the online portal. The initial claim was made on 03.08.2016 and received by the department on 30.08.2016. However, it was returned for lacking documents, and a resubmission was made on 08.11.2017. The department argued the refund was time-barred based on the latter date. The appellant contended that the initial filing date should be considered, citing relevant case laws. The adjudicating authority considered the date of the initial filing as crucial, not the resubmission date, aligning with established legal principles. Various judgments supported this stance, emphasizing the importance of the first filing date for time limitations. The appellant's refund claim was deemed timely, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal.

Issue 2: Time-barred refund claim leading to recovery of erroneous refund

The lower authorities had ordered the recovery of the erroneous refund, asserting that the refund claim was time-barred based on the resubmission date. However, the appellant successfully argued that the initial filing date should govern the time limit, not the resubmission date. The adjudicating authority's decision to consider the initial filing date as the relevant one was upheld, supported by precedents emphasizing the significance of the first filing date for time constraints. Consequently, the impugned order for recovery of the refund was deemed unsustainable and set aside, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the importance of the initial filing date for determining the timeliness of a refund claim. The judgment emphasized established legal principles and precedents supporting the appellant's position, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the order for recovery of the erroneous refund.