Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2021 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 598 - HC - CustomsRejection of refund claim - Customs Duty paid in excess - period of limitation - refund application filed on 06.01.2010 by appellant before the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Refund Section, Bangalore - compliance with the period of limitation specified under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 or not - HELD THAT:- In the present case, duty of customs payable on the transaction in question under the statute is ₹ 4,743/-, which has been admitted by the respondent and on account of erroneous calculation, the duty has been paid in excess to the tune of ₹ 42,26,975/-. The Authorities have turned down the claim of appellant on the ground of limitation. The claim of the appellant could have been corrected and the Tribunal has erred in observing that the payment of excess duty requires to be rectified under Section 154 of the said Act of 1962. The Authorities ought to have refunded the said excess amount to the appellant- Company either upon their application or on an application made by the importer. In the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT], it has been held that in order to claim excess duty paid, which falls outside the purview of the said Act of 1962, the limitation provided under Section 27 is not applicable. Hence, the appellant-company is certainly entitled for refund of duty. Thus, it is crystal clear that when the customs duty is paid in excess, the department is liable to refund the same and the limitation provided under Section 27 of the said Act of 1962 will not be applicable. Therefore, the Tribunal has erred in law and fact, solely relying on Section 27 of the said Act of 1962 while dismissing the application of the appellant-Company - this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant was not at fault in the matter at all. M/s. BEML was directed to file refund application at the first instance. If the department would have advised the appellant to file an application for refund, then there would not have been any delay. The substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant and against the revenue.
|