2016 (6) TMI 952 - AT - Customs

Claim of refund of export duty paid where goods could not be exported - Period of limitation - even though on payment of export duty, the Let Export Order (LEO) was received on 09.12.2011, but since they were not able to get any buyer, the shipment was delayed and they requested for cancellation of the shipping bill and for permission to file fresh shipping bill to export their goods. It is his contention that the shipping bill was allowed to be cancelled only on 23.01.2013 and they had filed the refund claim on 10.05.2013. Held that - A plain reading of the aforesaid provision reveals that the period of limitation starts from the date of payment of duty. Exceptions are mentioned in the said provision viz. duty paid under protest, duty paid during provisional assessment, etc. In the present case, the duty has been finally assessed and paid by the Appellant following self assessment procedure on 05.12.2011 and Let Export Order was issued thereafter. Therefore, in view of the principle laid down by the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Vedanta Ltd (2016 (5) TMI 437 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT), the period of limitation would start from the date of payment of duty i.e. 05.12.2011. Consequently, in our view, the refund claim filed by the Appellant on 10.05.2013 is beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 hence barred by limitation. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Refund claim for export duty rejected on grounds of limitation
- Interpretation of time limit under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962
- Applicability of case laws cited by Appellant

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim for export duty based on limitation. The Appellant, an exporter of Iron ore Fines, filed a refund claim of &8377;1,45,39,200 on 04.05.2013 due to the inability to export goods for which duty was paid. The claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority citing limitation. The Appellant contended that the refund claim was filed within six months of canceling the shipping bill, thus within time. The Appellant argued that if the duty paid was considered a deposit, the time limit under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 would not apply. The Appellant referred to various judgments to support their case.

2. The Revenue argued that the refund claim filed on 10.05.2013 was beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, regardless of reasons. They cited the Mafatlal Industries case, stating that refunds for erroneous duty payments should follow the Act's provisions. They referenced judgments where similar refund claims were rejected based on the Act's time limit.

3. The Tribunal analyzed Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, which specifies the time limit for refund claims starting from the date of duty payment unless exceptions apply. The duty was paid on 05.12.2011, and the refund claim was filed on 10.05.2013, exceeding the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal noted that the duty was finally assessed and paid by the Appellant, making the time limit applicable from the duty payment date. The Tribunal upheld the principle established in the Vedanta Ltd case, determining the refund claim as time-barred.

4. The Tribunal rejected the Appellant's argument to consider the duty paid as a deposit, citing the Mafatlal Industries case's precedent. They affirmed that refunds for duty paid erroneously under the Customs Act, 1962 must adhere to the Act's provisions. The Tribunal concluded that the time limit under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 applied to the case, dismissing the appeal and upholding the impugned order.