Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 394 - CESTAT MUMBAIRefund - Period of limitation - Short shipment of goods which has not been imported - Provision of Section 27 is not applicable - Held that:- it is found that the appellant have admittedly paid the Customs duty only after import and verification it was found that there is a short shipment of the goods. However, even though there is a short shipment but the amount paid by the importer/appellant is admittedly as a Customs duty only. Only for the reason that the goods were not imported the nature of the amount paid as duty will not stand altered, therefore whatever duty was paid by the appellant is a Customs duty only. Therefore, the refund of such Customs duty, in my considered view, is governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act, which is the only provision which deals with refund of duty refundable. Since the amount claimed as refund by the appellant can be refunded only under Section 27 of the Act, the limitation provided in the said Section shall also apply for sanction of refund. There is no other provision for refund of Customs duty except under Section 27 of the Act, therefore limitation is applicable. However, on the issue of limitation for the purpose of refund, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the various judgments categorically held that for refund of any amount, the statutory time limit provided under the Customs/Central Excise Act has to be followed mandatorily. Therefore, this issue has been clearly settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that even though the refund of duty recovered without authority of law but for the refund claims made before the departmental authorities, limitation provided under the Customs Act/Central Excise Act or Rules made there under is applicable. The authorities functioning under the Act bound by its provision. Therefore, since refund of any amount is covered by Section 27 and there is no other provision, this Tribunal being a creature under the Central Excise/Customs Act cannot go beyond the statute and therefore cannot relax the time limitation provided under the statute. As per my above discussion and settled legal position, the refund claim being filed after 6 month is hit by limitation and therefore correctly rejected by the lower authority. The impugned order is upheld. - Decided against the appellant
|