9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 87 - AT - CustomsRefund of amount paid under protest during investigation - rejection on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT - The learned Commissioner has erred in passing the impugned order dated 05.03.2015. In the impugned order the learned Commissioner has mentioned two issues raised by the appellant that adjudicating authority failed to appreciate that refund claim was made regarding consequential relief granted to the appellant. There was no requirement on the part of the appellant to file refund claim but the claim made by the appellant ought to have been granted by the department on its own. Hence the period of limitation of Section 27 of Customs Act 1962 was inapplicable. Therefore the impugned is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed. The learned Commissioner has nowhere given any finding on the above issue and did not make any comment on the said issue in correct perspective. It is well settled legal position and the impugned order is not sustainable to that extent and deserves to be set-aside. Learned Commissioner did not bother to give his finding regarding the said issue and has nowhere discussed the said issue in correct perspective. It has been held in various cases by Tribunal that where an assessee succeeds in overturning an adjudication order any amount paid either during investigation or as pre-deposit is to be refunded without raising the issue of limitation. The refund claim in such cases is not an ordinary claim under the Act but it is consequential relief resulting from the appellate order and therefore cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation as being time-barred - reliance can be placed in OPEL ALLOYS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. GHAZIABAD 2009 (9) TMI 361 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and M/S. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE 2011 (8) TMI 956 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . Conclusion - The payment of Rs. 5, 00, 000/- made by the appellant has been made under protest and there is no doubt about it. This being the case the amount deposited by the appellant cannot be taken as duty but it was a deposit and therefore the refund application could not have been rejected on the ground of limitation. The impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner is not sustainable and is liable to be set-aside and the appeal filed by appellant deserves to be allowed - Appeal allowed.
The core legal questions considered in this appeal revolve around the validity of rejection of a refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, specifically:
1. Whether the refund claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- paid under protest during investigation can be rejected on the ground of limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act. 2. Whether the limitation period under Section 27 applies to refund claims arising as consequential relief from appellate orders overturning adjudication orders confirming duty demands. 3. Whether payment made under protest loses the character of a deposit and becomes duty attracting the rigors of limitation under Section 27. 4. The interpretation and application of Section 27(1B)(b) of the Customs Act regarding computation of limitation period from the date of appellate orders. 5. The effect of prior appellate orders allowing the appellant's challenge on the entitlement to refund and the applicability of limitation in such circumstances. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis 1. Applicability of Limitation under Section 27 to Refund Claims Arising from Appellate Orders The relevant legal framework is Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, which prescribes a one-year limitation period for filing refund claims from the date of payment of duty or interest. However, Section 27(1B)(b) provides that where the duty becomes refundable as a consequence of any judgment, decree, order or direction of the appellate authority or court, the limitation period shall be computed from the date of such judgment or order. The Court examined the factual matrix where the appellant had deposited Rs. 5,00,000/- during investigation under protest, which was subsequently appropriated by the Adjudicating Authority in an Order-in-Original confirming duty and imposing penalty. The appellant successfully challenged this order before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal with consequential relief. The appellant then filed a refund claim for the amount deposited. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the ground of limitation, holding that the refund application was filed beyond one year from the date of payment and that the amount was appropriated as duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this rejection. The appellant contended that the limitation period under Section 27 does not apply to refund claims arising as a consequence of appellate orders, citing precedents which hold that such claims are consequential relief and cannot be time-barred. The appellant also emphasized that the payment was made under protest and thus does not constitute duty attracting limitation. The Tribunal analyzed the statutory provision, particularly Section 27(1B)(b), which explicitly states that limitation shall be computed from the date of the appellate order where the duty becomes refundable as a consequence of such order. Therefore, the limitation clock starts ticking from the appellate order date, not the original payment date. Further, the Tribunal noted that the appellant's refund claim was made within one year from the date of the appellate order allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief, thereby satisfying the limitation requirement under Section 27. 2. Character of Payment Made Under Protest The appellant submitted that the payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made under protest, as evidenced by a letter accompanying the Demand Draft explicitly stating disagreement with the demand but payment made to avoid further complications. The appellant argued that such payment is a deposit and not duty, and hence the limitation provisions applicable to duty refund claims should not apply. The Tribunal referred to settled jurisprudence that payments made under protest do not assume the character of duty and cannot be treated as final payments attracting limitation under Section 27. The Tribunal relied on several precedents including recent decisions where it was held that refund claims for amounts paid under protest are not barred by limitation. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider this crucial aspect and did not address the issue of protest payment in the impugned order, which was a significant omission. 3. Treatment of Competing Arguments and Evidence The department relied heavily on the literal interpretation of Section 27 and the Adjudicating Authority's order stating that the amount was appropriated as duty, thus triggering limitation. The department also emphasized that the refund claim was filed beyond one year from the date of payment. The appellant countered by stressing the appellate orders in their favor, which set aside the original adjudication confirming duty and penalties, thereby entitling them to refund of the amounts paid. The appellant argued that the refund claim is a consequential relief flowing from the appellate orders and limitation cannot be imposed mechanically. The Tribunal found the department's reliance on the original adjudication order misplaced since that order was set aside on appeal. The Tribunal also found that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not adequately address the appellant's argument on payment under protest and the effect of appellate relief on limitation. Moreover, the Tribunal noted that the refund claim for Rs. 2,50,460/- was allowed, indicating acceptance of refund claims arising from appellate relief, further supporting the appellant's position on the Rs. 5,00,000/- refund claim. 4. Application of Law to Facts and Tribunal's Reasoning The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's refund claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- was filed within one year of the appellate order allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief, thus satisfying the limitation condition under Section 27(1B)(b). Since the payment was made under protest, it did not constitute duty and the limitation period applicable to duty refund claims could not be mechanically applied. The Tribunal held that the refund claim is not an ordinary claim but a consequential relief arising from appellate orders overturning the original adjudication. Therefore, the refund claim cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal also observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not addressing the appellant's submissions on protest payment and the effect of appellate relief on limitation, thereby rendering the impugned order unsustainable. 5. Conclusions on Issues The Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 05.03.2015 rejecting the refund claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the ground of limitation and allowed the appeal. The Tribunal held that:
Significant Holdings The Tribunal crystallized the legal position in the following terms: "The refund claim in such cases is not an ordinary claim under the provisions of the Act but consequential relief resulting from the appellate order and thus cannot be time barred." "The payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- made by the appellant has been made under protest and there is no doubt about it. This being the case, the amount deposited by the appellant cannot be taken as duty but it was a deposit and therefore, the refund application could not have been rejected on the ground of limitation." "The limitation period under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not apply where the refund claim arises as a consequence of appellate orders allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief." "The impugned order dated 05.03.2015 is set-aside and refund claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- is allowed."
|
