Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2018 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 380 - HC - CustomsRefund of CVD paid - duty was paid under protest - rejection of refund of duty with interest on the ground that it is barred by limitation - Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - petitioner made an application for refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 only on 6-5-2015 i.e. beyond the period of one year from the date of the order of CESTAT namely 9-5-2013. Held that:- Under Section 11B, the application for refund of duty of excise must be made “before the expiry of one year from the relevant date.” “Relevant date” is defined in Explanation (B)(ec). Thus, the application for refund must be made before the expiry of one year from the date of the judgment, decree, order or direction of the authority, Tribunal or Court. What is important and what is different in Section 11B of the Central Excise Act from Section 27 of the Customs Act is that Section 11B does not contain a provision similar to sub-section (1B) of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 which opens with the words “Save as otherwise provided in this section”. Thus, Explanation (B) including clause (ec) thereof is not subject to the proviso. Under Section 27 of the Customs Act, sub-section (1B) is subject to the second proviso to sub-section (1). The respondents’ apprehension that if the petitioner’s submission is accepted, there would be no period of limitation is not well founded. An application for refund must be made within a reasonable period of time. What is reasonable a period of time would depend on the facts of each case. This apprehension in any event cannot be the basis of denying a just claim on the ground of limitation. Refund allowed - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
|