2014 (7) TMI 1069 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Application u/s 27 - Whether appellant was required to file any refund claim application under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 when on finalization of provisional assessment under Section 18 it was found that appellant has paid excess Customs duty at the time of provisional assessment as compared to duty which was finally assessed - Held that - During the relevant period when an amount becomes refundable to an assessee upon finalization of provisional assessment by the appropriate authority, the same has to be refunded immediately and appellant was not required to file any refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, refund claim cannot be held to be time barred as the same pertained to provisional assessments before 12.07.2006 - Following decision of Commissioner of Customs Vs Indian Oil Corporation 2012 (1) TMI 31 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Whether the appellant's refund claim was time-barred under the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim of Rs. 21,20,013/- by the Commissioner (Appeals) Vadodara, which was upheld as time-barred under Section 27, read with Section 18, of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The appellant argued that no refund application was required to be filed as per a letter from the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Vadodara-I, which found an excess payment by the appellant. Citing case laws, the appellant contended that the refund was due without a formal application.

3. The Revenue argued that a refund claim had to be filed within six months from the date of the duty adjustment. The first appellate authority's decision was supported by the Revenue.

4. The core issue was whether the appellant needed to file a refund claim under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, when excess duty was found to be paid at the time of provisional assessment. The appellant relied on a case involving Indian Oil Corporation to support their argument.

5. The Delhi High Court's judgment in a similar case highlighted situations where a refund application was not required, especially when the duty paid provisionally was reduced on final assessment, entitling the assessee to a refund without a formal claim.

6. The Tribunal's decision in a comparable case emphasized that under Section 18, no application was needed for refund if the duty was found to be paid in excess. The doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply retroactively, further supporting the appellant's position.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the appellant was not required to file a refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the excess duty paid was refundable upon finalization of provisional assessment. The refund claim was not time-barred as it related to provisional assessments before 12.07.2006.

8. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant based on the established legal principles and the immediate refund obligation upon finalization of provisional assessments.