Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2017 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 616 - HC - CustomsRefund claim - time limitation - Whether the CESTAT is right in holding that the importer is entitled to get refund claim, even though the importer has made the refund claim beyond the limitation period as prescribed u/s 27 of CA, 1962? Whether the CESTAT is right in holding that periodicity of 6 months as envisaged u/s 27 of CA, 1962 is not applicable to the refund amount realised by the Revenue by enforcing Bank Guarantee as this does not represent any duty u/s 27 of the CA? Held that: - respondent no.2 had been issued three licenses between June, 1995 and October, 1995, for importing capital goods at a concessional rate of duty. This facility could be made available to respondent no.2, by virtue of the provisions of Notification No.110/1995. Admittedly, under the EPCG Scheme, respondent No.2, had a leeway of five years for completing the export obligation. Respondent fulfilled the export obligation, well within the time frame, provided under the EPCG Scheme, but also furnished all documents in that behalf - The delay with regard to the submissions of EODC, in our view, could not be attributed to respondent no.2, as requisite steps had been taken by it, immediately after, fulfilment of export obligation by furnishing other relevant documents, which would have demonstrated that the export obligation in point of fact stood fulfilled. As to the nature of the amount deposited in whichever form. If, the amount deposited, is, towards security, surely, once the Assessee succeeds, he is entitled to seek restitution. Restitution, in such like circumstances, is not covered by Section 27 of the Act. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|