9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake. In similar circumstances, in respect of a service tax matter, the Division Bench of this Court, in 3E Infotech vs. CESTAT, Chennai [ 2018 (7) TMI 276 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ], held that limitation period would not apply where the tax was paid by mistake. A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions viz., Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and Section 27 of the Customs Act would reveal that both the provisions operate in the same manner with respect to claims for refund of duties. They clearly stipulate that a refund claim must be made within one year from the date of payment, and the procedure to be followed for filing such claims. However, neither of the provisions explicitly addresses the ;situations under which the duty or tax was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions and relaxations, the petitioner company did not receive the refund for the excess duty paid to the Customs Department. Even after lifting of the restrictions, no refund was made until August 2023. Hence, the petitioner made refund applications, which were rejected by the respondent by the order impugned herein, on the ground that they were time-barred as per Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in 3E Infotech Vs. CESTAT, Chennai [2018 (18) GSTL 410 (Mad.), where a similar issue arose under Section 11B of the Service Tax Act and it was held therein that the time limitation for claiming a refund under that provision did not apply when the tax was paid by mistake, the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication in such form and manner as may be prescribed for such refund to the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Customs, before the expiry of one year from the date of payment of such duty or interest. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision would reveal that a refund application must be made within one year from the date of payment. However, it does not specify that this limitation applies when the duty was paid by mistake. In similar circumstances, in respect of a service tax matter, the Division Bench of this Court, in 3E Infotech vs. CESTAT, Chennai (supra), held that limitation period would not apply where the tax was paid by mistake. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder: 13. On an analysis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther person; A combined reading of the aforesaid provisions viz., Section 11B of the Central Excise Act and Section 27 of the Customs Act would reveal that both the provisions operate in the same manner with respect to claims for refund of duties. They clearly stipulate that a refund claim must be made within one year from the date of payment, and the procedure to be followed for filing such claims. However, neither of the provisions explicitly addresses the ;situations under which the duty or tax was paid by mistake. Therefore, the legal principle laid down by the Division Bench in the decision referred to above, that the limitation period does not bar a refund claim when the duty or tax was paid by mistake, squarely applies to the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
