9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Section 27 which speaks about the refund of the duty cannot be pressed into service to deny refund of the amount covered under the bank guarantee which has been negotiated by the department. Thus, it is very much clear that refund claim of the security deposit is not governed by the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act and consequently, the lower authorities have clearly erred in rejecting and confirming the rejection of refund claimed of the security deposit by invoking the provisions of Section 27(1) ibid. The impugned order is not sustainable and hence, the same is set aside - Appeal allowed. - Customs Appeal No. 40514-40515 of 2022 - FINAL ORDER NOs. 40009-40010 / 2023 - Dated:- 13-1-2023 - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the rejection of refund claim on the very ground of the same being barred by limitation in terms of Section 27(1) ibid. Being aggrieved by the above rejection vide common impugned Orders-in-Appeal, the taxpayer / appellant has filed the present appeals before this forum. 4. Heard Shri G. Natarajan, Learned Advocate for the appellant, and Smt. K. Komathi, Learned Additional Commissioner for the Revenue. 5.1 Learned Advocate for the appellant would submit at the outset that the refund claim of the appellant was not of any duty or tax paid and hence, the question of limitation prescribed under the provisions relating to refund claim would not apply and consequently, there was no scope for the lower authorities to reject the refund claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only vide intimations dated 09.07.2019 and 14.08.2019, the refund claim made by the appellant is within the prescribed period of limitation from the date of communication of the same. 5.3 He would also place heavy reliance on these decisions:- (i) Commissioner of Customs (Export), Chennai-1 v. M/s. Cable Corporation of India Ltd. [2008 (229) E.L.T. 212 (Mad.)]; (ii) M/s. Mehta Flex Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai [2014 (310) E.L.T. 900 (Tri. Mumbai)]; (iii) Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai v. M/s. Pioneer Power Corporation Ltd. [2015 (6) TMI 576 CESTAT, Chennai]; and (iv) M/s. GNC Infra LLP v. Assistant Commissioner (Circle) [2021 (11) TMI 973 Madras High Court] and, in partic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Commissioner of Customs (Exports) v. M/s. Jraj Exports (P) Ltd., 2007 (217) E.L.T. 504 (Mad.) = 2007 (3) TNLJ 532, wherein we have held that the bank guarantee cannot be regarded as equivalent to payment of duty and it is only furnished to safeguard the interest of the Revenue in case of non-fulfilment of export obligation. Section 27 which speaks about the refund of the duty cannot be pressed into service to deny refund of the amount covered under the bank guarantee which has been negotiated by the department. In the decision in the case of Jraj Exports (P) Ltd., referred to supra, this Court has taken in aid the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, 1994 (70) E. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
