9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... months later vide letter dated 30.04.2019 conveying that the refund application had to be filed before another officer. The petitioner filed the refund claim application to the concerned officer albeit not in the prescribed format whereafter, it was again returned and was filed afresh in the prescribed format. Therefore, the finding of the respondents Authority that the application for refund was timebarred is totally unwarranted. The petitioner was unquestionably prosecuting his refund claim in a bonafide manner which ought not to have thrown away on hyper-technical objection of not having been filed before the competent authority and/or not having been filed in the prescribed format and finally as being delayed. The concerned author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner. As per Section 26 of the Customs Act, 1962, a registered dealer is entitled to seek refund of the security amount once the EODC is issued and the time limit for filing the refund application is six months from the date of clearance of goods which as per the petitioner is 10.10.2018 in the case at hand. Having acquired the EODC, the petitioner applied for the refund of the amount of the bank guarantee vide letter dated 24.11.2018. However, it seems that the application was inadvertently addressed to the Commissioner, Customs and should have been filed before the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs which is the proper officer to grant refunds under Section 27 of the Customs Act. A letter dated 30.04.2019 was issued fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in, a submission is made that the application dated 04.09.2020 submitted by the petitioner was received in the Office of the respondent after a delay of five months and thus, the same was rightly rejected as being time-barred. Having considered the submissions advanced by Shri Jaideep Singh Saluja, learned counsel representing the petitioner, Shri Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned ASG and Shri Rajvendra Saraswat, learned counsel representing the respondents, we are of the firm view that the Respondent No.3 Refund authority acted in an absolutely hyper-technical, unjustified and arbitrary manner while rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner on the ground of delay. The bank guarantee submitted by the petitioner as a security agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uing his claim for refund of bank guarantee which was initially filed to the Commissioner Customs, Chennai within a period of one and a half months from the date of issuance of the EODC. The application was referred back to the petitioner almost after five months later vide letter dated 30.04.2019 conveying that the refund application had to be filed before another officer. The petitioner filed the refund claim application to the concerned officer albeit not in the prescribed format whereafter, it was again returned and was filed afresh in the prescribed format. Therefore, the finding of the respondents Authority that the application for refund was timebarred is totally unwarranted. The petitioner was unquestionably prosecuting his refund c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
