TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 CUSAA 21/2025, CM APPL.1042/2025 CUSAA 22/2025, CM APPL.1044/2025 CUSAA 23/2025, CM APPL.1046/2025 CUSAA 24/2025, CM APPL.1048/2025 CUSAA 25/2025, CM APPL.1051/2025 CUSAA 26/2025, CM APPL.1053/2025 CUSAA 27/2025, CM APPL.1056/2025 CUSAA 28/2025, CM APPL.1058/2025 CUSAA 29/2025, CM APPL.1060/2025 CUSAA 30/2025, CM APPL.1062/2025 CUSAA 31/2025, CM APPL.1064/2025 CUSAA 32/2025, CM APPL.1066/2025 CUSAA 33/2025, CM APPL.1069/2025 CUSAA 34/2025, CM APPL.1072/2025 JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH And JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA For the Appellant : Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Agrim Arora, Ms. Purvi Sinha & Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advs. (IN ALL MATTERS) For the Respondent : Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC and Mr. Ritwik Saha and Mr. Umang Misra, Advs. with Mr. Rajeev Ranj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e benefit under the said Notification dated 17 March, 2012. 6. Accordingly, the Appellant had sought refund of excess custom duty paid with respect to thirty-one bills of entry. The Appellant, for this purpose, had filed two refund applications before the Deputy Commissioner (Refunds) on 25th September, 2015 categorizing the thirty-one bills of entry into two batches consisting of 14 and 17 bills, respectively. 7. The said refund applications were rejected by Deputy Commissioner (Refunds) vide Order dated 30th June, 2016 on the ground that the Appellant has not provided re-assessed bills of entry in respect of said refund claims. 8. The Appellant had preferred an appeal against the said Order dated 30th June, 2016 in W.P.(C) 7851/2016. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect to service tax in Central Office Mewar Palace Organisation v. Union of India. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are not inclined to accept the reasoning adopted by the High Court, that too is also not under the provisions of the Customs Act. 46. The decision in Intex Technologies (India) Ltd. v. Union of India has followed Micromax. The reasoning employed by the High Courts of Delhi and Madras does not appear to be sound. The scope of the provisions of refund under Section 27 cannot be enlarged. It has to be read with the provisions of Sections 17, 18, 28 and 128. 47. When we consider the overall effect of the provisions prior to amendment and post-amendment under the Finance Act, 2011, we are of the opinion that the cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 seeking exclusion of the period of litigation i.e., from 21st October, 2014 (date of the Assessment Order) to 18th September, 2019 (date of pronouncement of ITC (supra)), in computation of the limitation period in filing of appeals. 13. The Commissioner (Appeals), vide the order dated 17th December 2020 rejected the said thirty-one appeals on two grounds namely, (i) the Appellant was not litigating on proceedings of like nature as mandated by Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963 i.e., the previous litigation sought for refund and the present appeal seeks reassessment. (ii) the Appellant was not prosecuting in good faith in a wrong forum lacking jurisdiction as mandated by Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill the 31 appeals would have to be dismissed as having been filed beyond the time period contemplated under section 128(1) of the Customs Act. 86. The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, committed по illegality in dismissing the appeals." 16. The rationale in the order of the CESTAT is that, though, the appeals were filed within 90 days of the passing of the judgment by the Supreme Court in ITC (supra), the time which has elapsed between the bills of entry and the application for refund by the Appellant would not be condonable and hence the appeals were dismissed by CESTAT. The Appellant has preferred these appeals against this order of CESTAT dated 4th June, 2024. 17. This Court, upon perusal of the appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|