9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the first time refund claim was filed on 30.08.2016 which was well within the stipulated time. The refund filed by the appellant is not hit by limitation - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No.10471 of 2020-SM - Final Order No. A/11262/2022 - Dated:- 12-10-2022 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri. Vijay N Thakkar, Consultant for the Appellant Shri Prakash Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The brief facts of the case are that the appellant have paid double customs duty due to technical glitch in the online payment portal, subsequently they filed refund claim vide their application dated 03.08.2016 which was received by the departmental office on 30.08.2016. The refund claim was subsequently returned for want of some documents. The appellant have re-submitted the claim on 08.11.2017. Though the refund claim was initially sanctioned, the department had filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the sanctioned order. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for verification without expressing any specific view. Meanwhile, the sanctioning authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund claim. Further, I observe that in response the claimant has submitted a letter dated 03.08.2016 received by this office on 08.11.2017 which is nothing but to mislead the department to show their claim dated was 03.08.2016. The date of receipt of the refund claim shown as 08.11.2017 [Inward seal of the office shows No.9571 dated 08.11.2017]. Therefore, I do not agree with the contention of the claimant submitted at the time of Personal Hearing. The scan copy of both the letters are as it is pasted below. From the above findings there is no dispute that the appellant had indeed submitted their refund claim vide letter dated 03.08.2016 which had been received by the office on 30.08.2016. Though the refund was returned for some query for want of documents and subsequently the appellant had resubmitted the same claim on 08.11.2017, the date of filing of refund claim shall be taken as 30.08.2016 not 08.11.2017, accordingly, the refund was filed well within the time. This issue is no longer res integra as the same has been decided in plethora of judgments, some of the judgments are cited below:- NOKIA SALES PVT. LTD.- 2019 (368) E.L.T. 975 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 4. I have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... below five percent and not exceeding thirty percent per annum as is for the time being fixed [by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette] on such duty from the date immediately after the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of such application till the date of refund of such duty: It makes it clear when even read with Section 11BB of Central Excise Act that for the payment of interest after three months from the date of receipt of refund application, the applicant shall be entitled for the interest at the rate as prescribed. The provision is nowhere expressing about application to be called so only in case it is supported by the requisite documents. The law has been settled that the fiscal legislation has to be construed strictly and one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision. There is nothing to be read in or nothing to be implied and there is no room for any intentment as it was held by Hon ble Apex Court in the case Ajmera Housing Corporation and Other v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2010 (8) SCC 739. If at this stage, the plea of Department is looked into still the deficiency of application does not entitle the De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter is remanded to the Original Authority to decide the case on merits by giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and the matter should be decided within four months from the receipt of this order. The appeal is allowed by remand to the Original Authority. REPRO INDIA LTD.- 2016 (43) S.T.R. 203 (Tri.-Mumbai) 11 . With this elapse of time in finalizing the claim for refunds the validity of which was sub silentio not questioned, the original authority appeared to have been actuated by the probability of claim for interest arising from the delay that entailed. To reject the claims thereafter, not on merit but by resort to bar of limitation, at the end of the protracted process reflects lack of responsibility and lack of accountability. That this is so is confirmed in the concurrence with this summary disposal by the first appellate authority. BALMER LAWRIE CO. LTD.- 2015 (315) E.L.T. 100 (Tri.-Kolkata) 5.1 Now, reverting to the dispute whether the refund claim is filed beyond the period of one year from the relevant date, we find that the Applicant had filed the refund claim initially on 11-12-2002, for an amount of Rs. 9,06,932/- i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
