TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants have intimated their protest within reasonable time, that is within 2 weeks of payment of duty, this letter issued by them can be considered as intimation of protest. The immediateness of the letter shows that it was not issued solely with intention to extend limitation. The refund cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation - the rejection of refund claim of ₹ 3,14,923/- remain undisturbed as appellant not contesting the same - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/1769/2011 - A/30466/2017 - Dated:- 6-3-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Sh. Mohan Kodura, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Sh. Nagraj Naik, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid duty under protest and therefore refund claim filed beyond the period of 6 months is barred by limitation. 3. At the time of personal hearing in the adjudication proceedings, the appellants filed proper refund claim before the adjudicating authority along with necessary documents. It was submitted by them that in view of the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s ESSAR Steel Ltd., dated 12.07.2010 the issue whether export duty is payable on goods supplied to SEZ is settled in their favour and appellants are not liable to pay the duty. After due process of law, the original authority rejected the refund claim on the ground of limitation. It was held that the protest has not been recorded by the department and that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ik reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the authorities below have rightly rejected the refund claim on the ground of limitation. The appellant has not complied with the procedure to record their protest while paying the duty. Further, they have not furnished any document to show that the duty was paid under protest. That there is no evidence to establish that the letter dated 27.02.2009 intimating their protest was received by the department and their protest was recorded. That therefore, the refund has been rejected rightly as it has been filed beyond the period of 6 months prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. I have heard the submissions made by both sides. The issue to be decided narrow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee, the department cannot contend that the letter intimating protest should be in a particular form. The appellants have issued a letter dated 27.02.2009 intimating their protest after paying the duty of ₹ 16,01,994/- on 12.02.2009. The same is undeniably received by the department on 03.03.2009. The said intimation of protest has been served to the department within the period of limitation and within reasonable time. The refund claim has been filed much later on 26.10.2010. It is therefore clear from the facts presented before me that the appellants have intimated their protest of paying the duty by the letter dated 27.02.2009. The adjudicating authority has not accepted this letter stating that it is only a letter requesting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
