9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 146 - AT - CustomsDenial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Held that - Quantity contained in the container was less than the quantity mentioned in the Bill of Entry and other import documents. On the basis of these documents the appellant had paid excess duty. The appellant requested for reassessment of the Bill of Entry vide their letter dt. 18.12.2000 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, MOD Docks, Mumbai. In this letter the appellant have also requested that the excess duty paid by them may be refunded. - lower authorities have rejected the refund claim on the ground that in respect of the Bill of Entry dt. 4.12.2000 for which duty was paid on 8.12.2000, the refund application was received on 4.9.2001 i.e. after six months from the date of payment of duty. - excess amount of duty is paid by the appellant is ordered to be refunded. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues: Refund claim rejection due to late filing under Section 27 of the Customs Act
Analysis: The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal where the refund claim was rejected for not being filed within six months from the date of duty payment as per Section 27 of the Customs Act. The appellant had imported goods, and upon examination, it was discovered that the quantity in the container was less than stated in the import documents, leading to excess duty payment. The appellant requested reassessment and refund in a letter dated 18.12.2000 to the Deputy Commissioner. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim for the Bill of Entry dated 4.12.2000, stating that the refund application was received after six months from the duty payment date of 8.12.2000. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's letter dated 18.12.2000 requesting reassessment and refund should be considered as the refund claim. Since this letter was within the six-month time limit from the duty payment date, the excess duty paid by the appellant was deemed refundable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, directing the refund of the excess duty amount.
|
