2014 (2) TMI 360 - AT - Customs

Refund of duty paid on capital goods on conversion from 100% EOU scheme to EPCG scheme - computation of period of limiation - appellant claims that 6 months should be counted from the date of issue of no due certificate i.e. 6.10.2010 - Held that - Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 has clear provisions to reckon the time from the date of payment of duty. This cannot be changed to some other date depending on the situation to be interpreted by each authority. Therefore, the decisions given by the lower authorities are in conformity with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Calculation of refund claim based on duty payment conversion from 100% EOU to EPCG scheme.
2. Interpretation of the time limit for claiming refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Applicability of the date for refund claim calculation - date of payment of duty or date of issue of no due certificate.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a 100% EOU, imported capital goods without duty payment under Notification 52/2003-Cus. They later sought conversion to EPCG scheme, self-calculated duty, paid it, and obtained a no due certificate. Subsequently, they filed a refund claim of Rs. 1,80,109/-, alleging excess duty payment. The Asst. Commissioner rejected the claim citing Section 27 of the Customs Act, requiring refund claims within 6 months of duty payment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision.

2. The appellant argued that the 6-month period should start from the date of issue of the no due certificate, falling within the timeline for their claim. Conversely, the Revenue contended that the Customs Act mandates the 6-month period from the date of duty payment, citing a precedent from the Madras High Court.

3. The Tribunal, after considering both arguments, sided with the Revenue, emphasizing the Customs Act's clear provision to calculate the refund claim timeline from the date of duty payment. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's plea to alter the starting point for the 6-month period, stating that such interpretation deviations are impermissible. The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities and dismissed the appeal, aligning with the Madras High Court precedent and the Customs Act's stipulations.

This judgment clarifies the strict adherence to the statutory provisions for refund claims under the Customs Act, emphasizing the significance of the date of duty payment as the starting point for the 6-month timeline. It underscores the importance of aligning refund claims with the statutory framework, limiting interpretative flexibility in such matters.