9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
2019 (4) TMI 1359 - AT - CustomsRefund of Customs Duty - the duty was refunded twice - time limitation - HELD THAT - There is no doubt that the duty amounting to Rs. 2, 72, 701/- has been realized twice from the respondent first time through Bank Draft deposited at SBI Air Cargo Complex and second time by electronically debiting Rs. 2, 72, 701/- along with interest of Rs. 84, 052/- - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Refund claim under Customs Act, 1962. 2. Double duty payment. 3. Time-barred refund claim. 4. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal. Analysis: 1. The case involved a refund claim filed by the respondent under Section 27(1)(a) & (b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The initial claim was for Rs. 2,72,701, which was later increased to Rs. 3,56,753 due to double duty payment on a Bill of Entry. The respondent realized the error and promptly filed a refund claim through the ICEGATE Help System. The Refund Sanctioning Authority approved a refund of Rs. 2,72,701 instead of the full amount. The Revenue appealed this decision. 2. It was established that the respondent had indeed paid Rs. 2,72,701 twice - first through a Bank Draft in 2011 and then electronically in 2013. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the refund of Rs. 2,72,701, stating that the claim for the full amount was time-barred as it was made after a year. The Revenue contended that the refund was time-barred since it was processed in 2014. 3. The Tribunal noted that the duty amount of Rs. 2,72,701 had been collected twice from the respondent. The Commissioner's decision was supported as being detailed and justified, hence no intervention was warranted. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the stay petition was also disposed of accordingly. 4. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision regarding the refund claim under the Customs Act, 1962, emphasizing the double duty payment issue and the time-barred nature of the full refund claim. The appeal against the Order-in-Appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision in favor of the respondent.
|
