2023 (1) TMI 599 - AT - Customs
Rejection of refund of cash security deposit - rejection of refund on the ground that the appellant’s claim was barred by limitation in terms of Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- It is not the case of the Revenue that what the appellant claimed was the refund of the duty paid and there is also no dispute that the appellant claimed only the security deposit made.
The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORT), CHENNAI-1 VERSUS CABLE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. [2008 (6) TMI 210 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS] has considered a similar issue and has held that Section 27 which speaks about the refund of the duty cannot be pressed into service to deny refund of the amount covered under the bank guarantee which has been negotiated by the department.
Thus, it is very much clear that refund claim of the security deposit is not governed by the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act and consequently, the lower authorities have clearly erred in rejecting and confirming the rejection of refund claimed of the security deposit by invoking the provisions of Section 27(1) ibid.
The impugned order is not sustainable and hence, the same is set aside - Appeal allowed.