9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Refund claim rejection as time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The appellants imported goods and paid duty, later seeking a refund as the goods were untraceable. The claim was rejected as time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act by the Assistant Collector of Customs. The appellants appealed to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) but were unsuccessful, leading to the present appeal. Arguing for the appellants, it was contended that Section 27 does not apply as the duty was pre-deposited and the claim was essentially for remission of duty under Section 23 of the Customs Act. The counsel cited relevant case law and legislative provisions to support this argument. Additionally, it was asserted that the refund claim was made within six months from the date of duty payment, meeting the statutory requirement. The counsel highlighted the sequence of events, including the initial application for remission and subsequent actions taken by the Department within the stipulated time frame. Upon review, the Tribunal found merit in the alternative submission that the refund claim was indeed made within six months as required by Section 27. The Tribunal emphasized the timely filing of the application for remission and subsequent correspondence, concluding that the claim was not time-barred. The Tribunal did not delve into the applicability of Section 27 to remission claims under Section 23, as the primary issue of limitation was resolved in favor of the appellants. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous orders and remanded the case to the Assistant Collector of Customs for further processing of the refund claim on its merits. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the Tribunal ruling in favor of the appellants based on the timely submission of the refund claim within the statutory period.
|
