9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication dated 31.07.2012 is within one year of the last Bill of Entry among 13 i.e. dated 05.01.2012. Even first Bill of entry dated 18.08.2011 fulfills the aforesaid limitation as applicable to the appellant. Section 27 (1B) prescribes the mode of computing the aforesaid period of limitation of one year. Thus, Sub-clause (c) thereof gives the extended time to the appellant and not to the Department. Section 27 (a) of the Customs Act says that if any duty ordered to be refunded under Sub-Section (2) of Section 27 to the applicant is not refunded within 3 months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of Section 27 they shall be paid to the applicant the interest at such rate as is mentioned in the said Section - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 72/- dated 03.10.2013 to the extent of ₹ 14,52,928/- pertaining to the refund of 8% SED as the same was abolished with effect from 01.03.2006 vide Notification No.9/2006 dated 01.03.2006. However, the refund of excess payment of CVD was rejected. In an appeal thereof Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 04.08.2014 had remanded back the matter for fresh decision after providing the opportunity of hearing to the party and also after considering the Chartered Engineers Certificate, affidavit and other documents as were submitted by the party. But these were not considered by the original adjudicating authority. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) had disposed of the appeal by way of restoration of refund claim for usual scrutiny and disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der challenge may be, therefore, set aside. The appeal is accordingly, prayed to be allowed. 4. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the Department that the rejection of interest is based upon the statutory mandate of Section 27 (1B) (c) of Customs Act, 1962. It is submitted that the Bills of Entry in the impugned case were reassessed by the concerned assessing group and communicated on 24.11.2015 and the refund claim was sanctioned on 3rd February, 2016 i.e. within three months from the date of reassessment. The entitlement of the appellant for interest has therefore rightly been denied. Appeal is accordingly, prayed to be rejected. 5. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, we are of the opin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisionally under Section 18, the limitation of one year shall be computed from the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof or in case of re-assessment from the date of such re-assessment. 7. It is apparent that Section 27 as such is relevant for the claim of refund of duties, which reads as follows: Section 27: Claim for refund of duty:- (1) Any person claiming refund of any duty or interest (a) paid by him : or (b) Borne by him, may make an application in such form and manner as may be prescribed for such refund to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy commissioner of Customs, before the expiry of one year from the date of payments of such duty or interest: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Customs Act says that if any duty ordered to be refunded under Sub-Section (2) of Section 27 to the applicant is not refunded within 3 months from the date of receipt of application under sub-section (1) of Section 27 they shall be paid to the applicant the interest at such rate as is mentioned in the said Section. As already observed above, the application for refund was filed on 31st July, 2012, another application in continuation thereof was filed on 11.08.2014. Reassessment was on 24.11.2015. Apparently, and admittedly, the amount of refund has been sanctioned but has not been refunded within 3 months from the date of receipt of the above mentioned application, Section 27 (a) being a statutory mandate upon the Department, we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
