Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (5) TMI 206

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dia Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin [[ 2019 (8) TMI 1044 - CESTAT CHENNAI] ] wherein on similar facts a contention was raised that in view of deletion of words in pursuance of an order of assessment in Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 with effect from 08.04.2011, the production of assessment order was not necessary, the Tribunal upheld the contention observing that nowhere in Section 27 it has been prescribed that the claimant should obtain either an order of assessment or reassessment as a condition precedent for claiming refund, particularly post 2011 amendment, that condition having been done away with. The letter dated 23.01.2018 whereby the prayer for reassessment and refund of excess duty paid was made has to be t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the order of the adjudicating authority rejecting the refund claim being time barred was upheld and the appeal was rejected. 2. The short issue raised in the present appeal is whether the refund claim of the appellant is barred by limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant filed the Bill of Entry No. 4529018 dated 23.12.2017 for import of Heavy Melting Steel Scrap‟ under CTH 72044900 and paid normal rate of BCD @ 15%. The appellant was eligible for exemption of BCD @ 2.50% in terms of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. dated 30.06.2017 under Sl. No. 368. The appellant, therefore vide letter dated 23.01.2018 requested the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur to reassess th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hich order was set aside by this Tribunal on 19.08.2021 and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to adjudicate the issue on merits. Pursuant thereto, the present impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 07.11.2022 affirming the view taken by the adjudicating authority that the refund claim has to be treated as filed on 29.04.2019 whereas the bill of entry was reassessed on 24.02.2018 which was beyond the period of one year from the date of assessment and accordingly rejected the appeal. Hence the appellant has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and perused the case recor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uoted below:- The bill of entry was filed under CTH 72042190 which is for scrap of other than stainless steel for the purpose of melting after claiming the benefit of Not. No. 050/2017 Sl. No. 368 which attracts the BCD @ 2.5% ad valoram however during the course of assessment the CTH has been changed from 72042190 to 72044900 which is for Heavy Melting scrap. While changing the CTH at the time of assessment the Notification as mentioned above was deleted by the system due to improper serial number with the corresponding CTH. It results the BCD has been charged @ 15% instead of 2.5% and we have deposited the duty as per the assessment. In view of above facts we request before you to please re-assess the bill of entry after incorpo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... We find that the request for refund was already made in their letter dated 18.12.2000. Treating this as the refund claim, it is well within the time limit of six months from the date of payment of duty. Therefore, the excess amount of duty is paid by the appellant is ordered to be refunded. 11. On an analysis of the precedent cited at the bar and also on perusal of the record, I am of the view that the letter dated 23.01.2018 whereby the prayer for reassessment and refund of excess duty paid was made has to be treated as the date on which the refund claim has been made and therefore the same is within the period of limitation of one year as prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act. After the amendment in 2011, it is no longer nece .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates