2023 (3) TMI 303 - AT - Customs

Refund of customs duty - time limitation - Detention of imported goods declared as Calcium Grease - Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - In the present case, admittedly, the duty was paid at the time of filing the Bill of Entry. However, the appellant became entitled to claim the refund of said customs duty by virtue of the Order-in-Original dated 18.03.2016, vide which imported goods of the appellant were ordered to be absolutely confiscated - In view of the discussion about Section 27 and the admission about the order dated 18.03.2016, it becomes apparently clear that the relevant date for the statutory period of one year to reckon, in the present case, is 18.03.2016. The refund claim of 14.11.2017 is therefore is the one as was filed after one year and nine months of the said relevant date. Hence, it is clear that the refund claim is not filed within the time prescribed for the same. Commissioner (Appeals) is therefore held to have rightly upheld the claim as being barred by time. As per the appellant himself till date there is no final assessment in the present case. Consequent to entire discussion, there are no reason to differ from the findings arrived at by the adjudicating authority below. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Refund claim rejection based on time bar
- Applicability of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962
- Relevant date for claiming refund
- Submission of proof for refund eligibility

Analysis:
The appeal was filed to challenge the rejection of a refund claim for customs duty deposited, following the absolute confiscation of imported goods declared as "Calcium Grease." The appellant argued that the refund claim was wrongly considered time-barred, emphasizing that the duty payment became refundable only after the goods were confiscated. The department contended that the goods were rightly confiscated as hazardous waste, and the refund claim was time-barred as it was not filed within one year of the confiscation order. The Tribunal analyzed Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows refund claims within one year of duty payment or other relevant dates. The relevant date for the present case was determined as the date of the confiscation order. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim, noting the lack of grounds or proof presented by the appellant to establish refund eligibility. The absence of final assessment and necessary documentation further supported the dismissal of the appeal. The order under challenge was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed accordingly.