2022 (9) TMI 754 - AT - Customs

Refund of Customs Duty - denial on the ground of refund claim filed after one year from the date of payment of duty - time limitation - Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - There is no dispute on the fact that the appellant have paid the excess duty on the excess quantity of goods not lifted from SEZ and subsequently, the department has amended the bills of entry in respect of actual quantities lifted by the appellant. The amendment was made under Section 149 of the Customs Act. It is the undisputed fact that the refund arises only after the amendment of bills of entry therefore, the relevant period of one year should be reckoned from the date of amendment and not from the date of actual payment of duty. The similar issue has been considered by this tribunal in the case of KESHARI STEELS VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY 1996 (9) TMI 154 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY wherein, it was held that if the refund is arising out of correction of clerical or arithmetical error under Section 154 of the Customs Act, the period of one year provided under Section 27 is not applicable to such case. The period of limitation in the facts of the present case should be reckoned from the date of amendment in the bills of entry. Since the appellant have filed the refund claim within one year from the date of amendment which is well within time accordingly, the refund cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejected due to time limit under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal regarding the rejection of a refund claim by the adjudicating authority under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant had filed bills of entry for import but could not lift the full quantity of goods, resulting in an excess payment of duty. The appellant sought amendment of quantity and duty under Section 149 of the Customs Act. The refund claim was rejected as it was filed after the one-year time limit. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, stating that the refund claim was filed after the prescribed time limit.

The appellant argued that the period for refund should be calculated from the date of amendment of bills of entry, not from the date of payment, as the refund arises only after the amendment. The tribunal considered relevant judgments, including Keshari Steels Vs. Collector of Customs, and held that in cases of correction of errors, the one-year limitation under Section 27 does not apply. The tribunal agreed that the refund claim should be considered from the date of amendment in the bills of entry, not from the date of payment, as the refund arises only post-amendment.

Therefore, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals, concluding that the refund claim was filed within the time limit when calculated from the date of amendment in the bills of entry. The decision was based on the legal position that in cases of corrections or amendments, the limitation period should be reckoned from the date of correction, not the original payment date.