2021 (7) TMI 161 - AT - Customs

Refund of CVD and SAD paid in excess - Time limitation - Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the application for refund is made under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of PAROS ELECTRONICS (P) LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 1995 (1) TMI 95 - SUPREME COURT , while dealing with the above provision, has inter alia held that If the application is under Section 27 of the Act then the authority, being a creation of the statute, must act within the ambit of that provision and if the application is delayed he has no alternative but to reject it as barred by limitation. There are no reasons to interfere with the rejection of refund - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Refund Claim Rejection:
The appellant filed refund applications seeking refund of the duty paid along with interest on excess quantity imported. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claims. The appellant then preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai. However, the appellant did not succeed in the first appeal, leading to the filing of the present appeals.

2. Arguments of the Appellant:
The appellant's representative made various submissions, including the history of obtaining Advance Licences and the subsequent importation of solvents for manufacturing and exporting Amoxicillin Tri hydrate. The appellant's efforts to modify the restored SION and the rejections faced from authorities were highlighted. Additionally, the appellant's compliance with the directions of Customs Officials in depositing duty and interest on excess imports was emphasized.

3. Departmental Representative's Stand:
The Departmental Representative supported the findings of the lower authorities and cited a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a relevant case. The reliance on legal precedents was intended to strengthen the opposition to the appellant's refund claims.

4. Judicial Analysis and Decision:
The Member (Judicial) considered the legal framework under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment and a CESTAT decision, the Member emphasized the statutory limitations and requirements for refund applications. Based on the settled legal position, the Member concluded that there were no grounds to interfere with the rejection of the refund claims. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the order was pronounced in open court on 01.07.2021.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the legal provisions governing refund claims under the Customs Act, 1962. The analysis highlighted the appellant's submissions, the Departmental Representative's stance, and the judicial interpretation of relevant legal principles. Ultimately, the decision to dismiss the appeals was based on the established legal framework and precedents cited during the proceedings.