TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1044X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 of the Customs Manual, Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 deals with such refund of duty and interest and therefore, any application filed will have to be processed and disposed of in the manner laid down under Section 27 read with the procedure under the Customs Manual. There is no dispute that the application for refund filed vide acknowledgement dated 11.03.2013 was within the prescribed period of one year and as regards the other conditions under Section 27, the same are not disputed by the Revenue - the rejection by the Ld. First Appellate Authority of the appeal as time-barred cannot sustain and accordingly, the same is set aside. Refund claim - Section 11B of the Central Excise Act - HELD THAT:- The appellant is entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BED) to goods imported from Malaysia (under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011); that thereafter, the appellant filed a refund claim on 11.03.2013 for ₹ 5,47,327/- being the difference; that the Assistant Commissioner vide communication dated 26.03.2013 insisted on obtaining re-assessment order on the Bill-of-Entry; that communications ensued, with the appellant mainly contending that in view of deletion of the words in pursuance of an order of assessment in Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 with effect from 08.04.2011, the production of assessment order was not necessary; that however, the Revenue insisted on production of assessment/re-assessment order, with communication dated 25.06.2018 being the last of such commu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iv) C.C.E., Bangalore-III Vs. Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. 2006 (206) E.L.T. 90 (Kar.); (v) C.C.E., Bangalore Vs. KVR Construction 2012 (26) S.T.R. 195 (Kar.); (vi) Geojit BNP Paribas Financial Services Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Cus. S.T., Kochi 2015 (39) S.T.R. 706 (Ker.); (vii) Aman Medical Products Ltd. Vs. C.C., Delhi 2010 (250) E.L.T. 30 (Del.); (viii) Alagendran Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. C.C. (Import), Chennai 2014 (313) E.L.T. 72 (Tri. Chennai); (ix) Akzo Nobel Coating India P. Ltd. Vs. C.C. (Sea), Chennai 2014 (312) E.L.T. 91 (Tri. Chennai); (x) Liebheer India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C. (Port), Kolkata 2017 (358) E.L.T. 656 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is relating to Customs refunds, especially when an application for refund is filed under Section 27 of the Customs Act. As per Chapter 14 of the Customs Manual, Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 deals with such refund of duty and interest and therefore, any application filed will have to be processed and disposed of in the manner laid down under Section 27 read with the procedure under the Customs Manual. 7.2 There is no dispute that the application for refund filed vide acknowledgement dated 11.03.2013 was within the prescribed period of one year and as regards the other conditions under Section 27, I find that the same are not disputed by the Revenue. I also find that nowhere in Section 27 has it been prescribed that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of M/s. 3E Infotech (supra) wherein the Hon ble High Court has categorically ruled as under : 12. Further, the claim of the respondent in refusing to return the amount would go against the mandate of Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. 13. On an analysis of the precedents cited above, we are of the opinion, that when service tax is paid by mistake a claim for refund cannot be barred by limitation, merely because the period of limitation under Section 11B had expired. Such a position would be contrary to the law laid down by the Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
