9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statutory period of one year to reckon, in the present case, is 18.03.2016. The refund claim of 14.11.2017 is therefore is the one as was filed after one year and nine months of the said relevant date. Hence, it is clear that the refund claim is not filed within the time prescribed for the same. Commissioner (Appeals) is therefore held to have rightly upheld the claim as being barred by time. As per the appellant himself till date there is no final assessment in the present case. Consequent to entire discussion, there are no reason to differ from the findings arrived at by the adjudicating authority below. Appeal dismissed. - Customs Appeal No. 51717 of 2022 [SM] - FINAL ORDER No. 50242/2023 - Dated:- 15-2-2023 - DR. RACHNA GUPTA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve for the department. 3. Appellant has submitted that his refund claim has wrongly been held as being barred by time. The date of Bill of Entry dated 30.01.2013 has wrongly been considered as the relevant date. It is impressed upon that the appellant became entitled for claiming the refund of customs duty paid by him, only after the goods imported by him were order to be absolutely confiscated. The refund claim cannot, therefore, be held as barred by time. Otherwise also, once the goods have not been cleared the importer/appellant was not liable to pay the duty. Since it was already paid, department cannot retain the same. The order of rejection of refund claim is therefore prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such duty or from any other such date as mentioned in the above section including the date of the judgment, decree, order etc, pursuant whereto the duty becomes refundable. 6. In the present case, admittedly, the duty was paid at the time of filing the Bill of Entry. However, the appellant became entitled to claim the refund of said customs duty by virtue of the Order-in-Original dated 18.03.2016, vide which imported goods of the appellant were ordered to be absolutely confiscated. In view of the above discussion about Section 27 and the admission about the order dated 18.03.2016, it becomes apparently clear that the relevant date for the statutory period of one year to reckon, in the present case, is 18.03.2016. The refund claim of 14.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
