2024 (4) TMI 974 - AT - Customs

Refund of EDD - Period of limitation - Appellant unaware of finalisation of bills of entry - request for finalisation of their provisional bills of entry and cancellation of pre-deposit - HELD THAT - It is found from the order in original dated 10.03.2021 that nowhere has the original authority mentioned the date of finalisation of the bills of entry, although he has only mentioned that the finalisation was made before July 2019. Further, in the communication dated 27.01.2020 again, the deputy commissioner while intimating about the finalisation of the bills of entry, has asked the appellant to approach refund section insofar as refund of EDD was concerned - In this communication also there is no mention about the date of finalisation of the bills of entry; the lower authority has only talked about the finalisation in the above manner without mentioning about the date of finalisation of assessment, which is very conspicuously absent. Moreover, even the date of dispatch, if made, is also not whispered anywhere, to avoid controversies. None of the communications to the appellant indicates date of actual communication of the order in original dated 29.04.2015. Hence, the prima facie burden on the revenue to adduce proper evidence to show the actual date of communication of the Order in Original, not to speak of the date of dispatch, remains un-discharged - It is thus not only the order appears to have passed in strict conformity with the established principles of law, but even the communication of the same is not at all proved anywhere. Same also appears to be irregular as authorities have quite conspicuously omitted to bring on record the actual date dispatch and the date of communication of the said order, with supporting documentary evidences. The case of the appellant accepted since even up to the date of its request made in the year 2018 for finalisation, apparently, the appellant was not served with the copy of the said Order in Original - the impugned order is set aside as Revenue has failed to prove or bring on record any of evidence in support of its claim that Order in Original was communicated on such and such a date and therefore, the application dated 04.08.2020 filed by the claimant was clearly hit by limitation within the meaning of section 27(1) ibid. - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Determination of limitation period for refund claim u/s 27(1) of the relevant act.

Summary:
The appellant imported goods and filed 52 bills of entry, which were provisionally assessed requiring payment of 1% of EDD. The finalization of the bills of entry was communicated to the appellant after they requested for it. The appellant then applied for a refund of the EDD, which was rejected by the original authority citing limitation under section 27(1). The appellant appealed this rejection, arguing that the finalization date was communicated late to them, making their refund claim within the limitation period.

The first appellate authority upheld the rejection, leading to the current appeal. The main issue was whether the appellant's claim was time-barred. The appellate tribunal found discrepancies in the communication regarding the finalization date of the bills of entry. The lack of evidence from the revenue to prove the date of communication of the Order in Original led to the tribunal accepting the appellant's case. The tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential benefits as per law.

In conclusion, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the revenue failed to provide evidence of the communication date of the Order in Original, leading to the refund claim not being time-barred under section 27(1) of the act.