2025 (2) TMI 276 - AT - Customs

Rejection of refund claim on the ground of time limitation - section 27 of the Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT - After the expiry of obligation period under EPCG the appellant paid the amount of duty foregone vide challans dt.01.03.2017 12.10.2017 15.11.2017 11.12.2017 and that the refund claim was filed on 09.01.2024 which is beyond the date of payment of duty. None of the relaxations given under section 27(1B) of the Customs Act would apply to the present case. Reliance placed on the order of this Tribunal in the case of IFGL REFRACTORIES LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX GUNTUR 2024 (11) TMI 807 - CESTAT HYDERABAD wherein the issue was that the original refund sanctioning authority after going through the facts and submissions made by the appellant inter alia held the refund claim as time barred as the same was not filed before the expiry of one year period from payment of duty and interest. Conclusion - In the facts of the case no fault can be found with the rejection of the refund claim which has admittedly been filed beyond the limitation period under the relevant statute i.e. Customs Act 1962 and therefore there is no ground for interfering with the impugned order. There are no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary issue considered in this judgment is whether the refund claim filed by the appellant, M/s Kalajyothi Process Pvt Ltd, is barred by limitation under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Specifically, the court examined whether the refund application was submitted within the statutory time limit and whether any exceptions to the limitation period applied.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents

The legal framework governing the refund claim is Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, which mandates that any person claiming a refund of duty or interest must file an application before the expiry of one year from the date of payment. The section also provides that the limitation of one year shall not apply where any duty or interest has been paid under protest.

The court considered precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Miles India Ltd, which upheld that refund claims are subject to the statutory limitation period. The Tribunal also referenced the judgment in IFGL Refractories Ltd, which reinforced the principle that refunds relating to illegal levies must adhere to statutory timelines.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The court interpreted Section 27 of the Customs Act to mean that the appellant's refund claim must be filed within one year of the duty payment. The court found that the appellant's payment of duty was not under protest, which would have exempted the claim from the limitation period.

Key Evidence and Findings

The appellant made duty payments on various dates in 2017, but the refund application was submitted on 09.01.2024, well beyond the one-year limitation period. The court found no evidence of any protest at the time of payment that would extend the limitation period.

Application of Law to Facts

The court applied Section 27 of the Customs Act to the facts, determining that the appellant's refund claim was time-barred. The court noted that the customs authority, as a statutory body, is bound by the provisions of the Act and cannot entertain claims filed beyond the specified period.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The appellant argued that the duty payments should be considered as pre-deposits, not final payments, and thus not subject to the limitation period. The court rejected this argument, noting that the payments were made without any pending reassessment or protest, and thus constituted final payments.

The appellant also cited various judgments involving bank guarantees and interim orders, which the court found distinguishable from the present case, as no such guarantees or orders were involved here.

Conclusions

The court concluded that the refund claim was filed beyond the statutory limitation period and did not qualify for any exceptions under Section 27 of the Customs Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Core Principles Established

The judgment reinforces the principle that refund claims under the Customs Act must strictly adhere to the statutory limitation period unless specific exceptions apply. The court emphasized that statutory bodies are bound by the provisions of the statute and cannot grant refunds outside the prescribed timeframe.

Final Determinations on Each Issue

The court determined that the appellant's refund claim was time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the claim was filed beyond the one-year limitation period without any valid exception. The appeal was dismissed on these grounds.