TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich has partly allowed the refund but rejected the refund of ₹ 10,49,491/- on the ground that the payment towards two bills of entry fall under the jurisdiction of ACC, Bangalore as the imports were made from ACC, Bangalore. In the additional submissions filed by the appellant, the appellant has also submitted that the bills of entry with reference to which the amounts have been paid twice were provisionally assessed during the relevant point of time due to pendency of SVB proceedings and those bills of entry were finally assessed by closure of provisional duty Bond by ACC, Bangalore in 2019 and communicated to the appellant on 04.01.2019 and has also submitted the documentary proof of final assessment of the said bill of entry an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of an amount of ₹ 92,07,343/- on account of excess payment due to EDI/ICEGATE problem which resulted in double payment towards Customs duty, along with refund application, the appellant had submitted confirmation from PAO, New Delhi which confirmed double payment towards certain bill of entries. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund) ICD, Bangalore had passed the Order-in-Original dated 28.11.2018 sanctioning refund of ₹ 81,56,506/- but rejected the refund of ₹ 10,49,491/- on the ground that the payment towards two bills of entry fall under the jurisdiction of ACC, Bangalore as the imports were made from ACC, Bangalore in respect of two said bills of entry. As per the Assistant Commissioner, the appellant should f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... double payment has been admitted by the original authority but the original authority wrongly rejected the refund with regard to these two bills of entry on the ground that he is not the competent authority to grant the refund and the appellant should file the refund before ACC, Bangalore. He further submitted that the bills of entry with reference to which the amounts have been paid twice were provisionally assessed during the relevant point of time due to pendency of SVB proceedings. He further submitted that these two bills of entry were finally assessed by closure of Provisional Duty Bond by ACC, Bangalore in 2019 and was communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 04.01.2019. He further submitted that as per Section 27(1B) of the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s CC (General), 2014-TIOL-2369-CESTAT-MUM wherein it was held by the Tribunal that since the original application for refund was filed within time, though before wrong authority, it cannot be said that the application was barred by limitation- Appeals allowed: CESTAT 4.2. He further submitted that it has been consistently held that the amount unless appropriated as duty, does not take colour of duty but the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has distinguished merely on the ground that the facts of the cases are completely different. Learned Counsel also relied upon the decisions of CESTAT, Bangalore in the case of Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., 2015 (326) ELT 336 wherein it has been categorically held that for the double payment du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not granted. Further, I find that subsequent adjudication authority rejected the refund only on account of time bar without appreciating that originally refund was filed in time before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Bangalore. Both the authorities have failed to consider the decision rendered in the case of Singh International Vs CC (General) (supra) wherein it has been held by the Tribunal that if the original application for refund was filed within time, though, before wrong authority, it cannot be said that the application was barred by limitation. Further, I also find that in the additional submissions filed by the appellant, the appellant has also submitted that the bills of entry with reference to which the amounts h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shown as receivable since the original adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund on 14-12-2012. The importation took place on 7-9-2012. The second payment was made on the advice of department and because of the helplessness of the department to connect payment earlier made to the Bill of entry and make the computer system facilitate clearance of goods. In such a situation, requiring the appellant to prove unjust enrichment is against the spirit of law. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the assessee has to prove that there was no unjust enrichment beyond any doubt. Even in murder cases, an offence is required to be proved only beyond reasonable doubt when a person can be hanged for the offence committed. Here the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
