9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Claim for refund of duty under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Detailed Analysis: The appeal filed by Maruti Udyog Ltd. challenges the order-in-appeal issued by the Collector of Customs, Delhi Airport regarding the claim for refund of customs duty under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Maruti Udyog had filed two refund claims which were rejected by the Assistant Collector due to not filing within the six-month limitation period. The company argued that the duty obligation is discharged only when the Challan is canceled with the customs authorities, linking it with the Bill of Entry, not when the duty is paid to the bank. This argument was dismissed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). When the matter was called for hearing, no one appeared for the appellants. The Departmental Representative explained that the claimants failed to avail concessions resulting in excess payment, which they sought as a refund after the duty payment. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim based on the expiry of the six-month period stipulated under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The appellant's contention was that the date of payment of duty should be considered as the date when the Challan is canceled by the Customs authorities, not when the amount is remitted to the bank. The Assistant Collector viewed the duty payment as discharged when the importer deposited the amount following the assessment, with Challan cancellation being a procedural and administrative act. The Collector of Customs, in the impugned order, relied on Section 27 of the Customs Act, stating that the relevant date for limitation computation is the date of duty payment, not the Challan cancellation date. The appellants argued that payment to the bank does not authenticate payment against dutiable goods without completing customs duty realization procedures, including Challan cancellation for duty accounting against the Bill of Entry. Upon considering the matter, it was found that Section 27(1)(b) requires refund applications to be made within six months from the date of payment. The contention that Challan cancellation date should be considered as the payment date was deemed untenable, as once the duty is paid to the bank, it becomes part of the revenue fund. Therefore, the appeal was rejected based on the above observations.
|
