2024 (10) TMI 405 - AT - Customs

Contradiction to an earlier order - recovery of refund granted erroneously - statutory time limit of one year - HELD THAT - In the facts of the case, it is obvious that there has been a double payment in the sense that payment has been made through MEIS scrips as well as in cash. Admittedly, there is no dispute on eligibility of refund on merit as such. However, it is also obvious that in the first instance, the refund claim was filed beyond the statutory time limit of one year and therefore, the Original Authority should have examined the claim within the four walls of the statutory provisions. In subsequent proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken into account the interpretation of certain exclusion of period due to COVID etc., in terms of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of certain provisions) Ordinance, 2020 and came to the conclusion that even after allowing this, the original statutory time limit would not have been adhered and therefore, the refund was required to be rejected as time barred. There is also substantive force in the arguments made by the Department that once the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) had attained finality, rightly or wrongly, the Importer/Respondent can now not reopen the same issue by going through the Appeal in the proceedings relating to consequential recovery of erroneous refund - Therefore, it appears that both the sides have certain points and issues in their support and substantive law points and order may have different interpretations. The submissions of the learned Advocate agreed upon that this Bench, in its discretion, may refuse to admit the Appeal on the ground of its being less than Rs.2 lakhs. Due to unique facts of the case and in the interest of justice, the Departmental Appeal need not be pursued any further and therefore, in exercise of my discretion, the Appeal of the Department is not admitted. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against contradictory orders, applicability of time limit for refund claim, exclusion of period due to COVID for time limit calculation, discretion to refuse admission of appeal based on amount involved.

Analysis:

1. Contradictory Orders Appeal: The Department filed an appeal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 17.04.2024, contending that the Importer/Respondent did not appeal against an earlier order dated 27.01.2023, which treated the refund claim as time-barred. The Department argued that the impugned order contradicted the earlier decision, which had attained finality. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the refund claim, but the Department challenged it based on the time limit issue.

2. Time Limit for Refund Claim: The Importer/Respondent imported automotive parts and initially paid Social Welfare Surcharge (SWS) through MEIS scrips. Subsequently, they paid Rs.1,20,201/- in cash and sought a refund, claiming it was a double payment. The original refund was granted, but the Department challenged it, alleging it was time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially rejected the refund claim as time-barred, but in a subsequent order, considering the exclusion of the period due to COVID, found the claim within the time limit based on a Supreme Court judgment.

3. Exclusion of Period Due to COVID: The Commissioner (Appeals) referred to the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, and a Supreme Court judgment excluding the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for time limit calculations. This exclusion allowed the Importer/Respondent's claim to be considered within the time limit, contrary to the earlier decision.

4. Discretion to Refuse Admission of Appeal: The Advocate for the Importer/Respondent argued that the Bench could refuse to admit the appeal based on the amount involved, citing Section 129A and the discretion to reject appeals where the amount does not exceed two lakh rupees. The Bench, considering the unique facts of the case and in the interest of justice, exercised its discretion to refuse admission of the Department's appeal, despite keeping all questions of law open for future consideration.

5. Final Decision: The Member (Technical) agreed with the Importer/Respondent's submissions and refused to admit the Department's appeal. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with the decision dictated and pronounced in open court. The judgment highlighted the unique circumstances of the case, the interpretation of legal provisions, and the exercise of discretion by the Bench in refusing the appeal based on the amount involved and the interests of justice.