9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 1209 - AT - CustomsWhat is the correct date for filing of the refund claim - Whether the date should be taken as 11.1.2013 as contended by the appellant herein or 28.11.2013 which is the date of resubmission of the application by the appellant or whether 12.11.2014 as decided by the adjudicating authority - Held that - the appellant had filed refund claim dt.11.1.2013 on 23.1.2013. A claim for refund which is wanting certain documents and particulars cannot be a reason to hold that the claim was not filed within time. The conclusion arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the appellant had filed the refund claim only on 17.9.2014 which was received in this case on 9.10.2014 is based on OIO. and has been filed beyond the stipulated period of one year from the date of issue of the OIO for final assessment, is in my opinion not correct. The consequential rejection of the appeal as time barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 is also incorrect. The Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Sashun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Jt. Secretary, M.F. (D.R), New Delhi 2013 (8) TMI 200 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has held that original filing of the claim is to be reckoned for the purpose of limitation. Therefore, the finding that claim of refund is time barred is contrary to the judgement of the Hon ble Madras High Court and is therefore set aside. The matter is being remanded to the original authority to examine the aspect of unjust enrichment. - Appeal allowed by way of remand
Issues:
1. Correct date for filing the refund claim. 2. Requirement of documents for ruling out unjust enrichment. 3. Applicability of the limitation period under Section 27 of the Customs Act. Analysis: Issue 1: Correct date for filing the refund claim The appellant filed a refund claim on 11.1.2013, which was returned due to missing documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the claim was filed on 17.9.2014, received on 9.10.2014, beyond the one-year period from the OIO date. However, the High Court's ruling in Sashun Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Jt. Secretary, M.F. (D.R) clarified that the original filing date is crucial for limitation. The Tribunal concurred, setting aside the time-barred decision and remanding for unjust enrichment examination. Issue 2: Requirement of documents for ruling out unjust enrichment The appellant contended that the CA certificate sufficed to rule out unjust enrichment, supported by separate accounting entries. The Revenue argued for additional documentation, including a Cost Accountant certificate and CENVAT credit non-availment proof. The Tribunal noted the irrelevance of the Cost Accountant certificate as per statute and upheld the CA certificate's validity, emphasizing the need for cooperation in document submission. Issue 3: Applicability of the limitation period under Section 27 The Revenue asserted that the claim was time-barred as the final submission was on 9.10.2014. However, the Tribunal rejected this, citing the original filing date as crucial. The Commissioner's decision based on the OIO date was deemed incorrect, aligning with the High Court's interpretation. The matter was remanded for unjust enrichment assessment, emphasizing the appellant's right to challenge document requests. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the time-barred decision and emphasizing the importance of the original claim filing date for limitation purposes. The case was remanded for further examination of unjust enrichment, highlighting the need for cooperation in document submission and the appellant's right to contest document requests as per law.
|
