9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present appeal inter alia are that the appellant had imported 6600 MT of Lime Stone from Malaysia under a Bill-of-Entry dated 28.11.2012 on payment of full duty including 5% Basic Customs Duty (BCD) which, according to the appellant, was paid without availing the benefit of differential duty (of 2% of BED) to goods imported from Malaysia (under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011); that thereafter, the appellant filed a refund claim on 11.03.2013 for Rs. 5,47,327/- being the difference; that the Assistant Commissioner vide communication dated 26.03.2013 insisted on obtaining re-assessment order on the Bill-of-Entry; that communications ensued, with the appellant mainly contending that in view of deletion of the words "in pursuan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C Ltd. - 1993 (67) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.); (ii) Joshi Technologies International Vs. Union of India - 2016 (339) E.L.T. 21 (Guj.); (iii) Parijat Construction Vs. C.C.E., Nashik - 2018 (359) E.L.T. 113 (Bom.); (iv) C.C.E., Bangalore-III Vs. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. - 2006 (206) E.L.T. 90 (Kar.); (v) C.C.E., Bangalore Vs. KVR Construction - 2012 (26) S.T.R. 195 (Kar.); (vi) Geojit BNP Paribas Financial Services Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Cus. & S.T., Kochi - 2015 (39) S.T.R. 706 (Ker.); (vii) Aman Medical Products Ltd. Vs. C.C., Delhi - 2010 (250) E.L.T. 30 (Del.); (viii) Alagendran Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C. (Import), Chennai - 2014 (313) E.L.T. 72 (Tri. - Chennai); (ix) Akzo Nobel Coating India P. Ltd. Vs. C.C. (Sea), Chennai - 2014 (312) E.L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms Manual which is relating to Customs refunds, especially when an application for refund is filed under Section 27 of the Customs Act. As per Chapter 14 of the Customs Manual, Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 deals with such refund of duty and interest and therefore, any application filed will have to be processed and disposed of in the manner laid down under Section 27 read with the procedure under the Customs Manual. 7.2 There is no dispute that the application for refund filed vide acknowledgement dated 11.03.2013 was within the prescribed period of one year and as regards the other conditions under Section 27, I find that the same are not disputed by the Revenue. I also find that nowhere in Section 27 has it been prescribed that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sdictional High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of M/s. 3E Infotech (supra) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has categorically ruled as under : "12. Further, the claim of the respondent in refusing to return the amount would go against the mandate of Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. 13. On an analysis of the precedents cited above, we are of the opinion, that when service tax is paid by mistake a claim for refund cannot be barred by limitation, merely because the period of limitation under Section 11B had expired. Such a position would be contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and therefore we have no hesitation in hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
