TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act 1962 and on the other, they find that the order of assessment being not challenged, they cannot be challenged by taking the route of refund. When the refund is not covered by Section 27, as revenue content, the question of challenging the assessment does not arise. Moreover, it is on record that the appellant has sought for reassessment of the bills of entry which were denied to the appellant saying that there was no provision in the system. Thus, the stand of the Department is not only contradictory to their own argument but also legally not acceptable. The issue is of a simple restitution. Even if one argues that the limitation provided in Section 27 is applicable to any type of refund. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2021. A show cause notice dated 07/01/2022 was issued to the appellant and the original Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim in terms of the show cause notice. An appeal filed by the appellants before the First Appellate Authority came to be rejected. Hence, this appeal. 3. Shri N V Ramana Rao, learned Counsel, appearing on the behalf of the appellant would submit that the Original Authority and the First Appellate Authority passed the orders with a revenue bias without following the judicial discipline and without considering the submissions of the appellant. He submits that Hon ble Supreme court vide suo motu order dated 10/01/2022 ordered that the period from 15/03/2020 to 28/02/2022 shall stand excluded in computing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1962 and Regulation 4(3) of the bill of entry (electronic integrated declaration and paperless processing) Regulations , 2018 or the public notice dated 26/03/2020. He further submits that challenging the assessment order including self assessment is a prerequisite for refund claim of any amounts; as the order was not challenged, refund cannot be sanctioned under Section 27 ibid. He relies upon the following case law. M/s ITC Limited-2019 (368) ELT 216 (SC). M/s Priya Blue Industries Limited-2002 (148) ELT 809 (Tri. Delhi) M/s Mafatlal Industries Limited- 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC). CC Vs India United Mills- 1986 (24) ELT 436 (Tribunal) M/s Geojit BNP Paribas Financial Services Limited- 2015 (39) STR 706 (Kerala) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argument of the appellant that the department cannot retain the amount paid under a mistaken notion of law and that the refund claim is not time barred in view of the suo motu Order date 10/01/2022 by the Hon ble Supreme Court wherein it was ordered that, due to the existing pandemic, the period from 15/03/2020 to 28/02/2022 stand excluded in computing the prescribed periods of limitation . 9. I find that the issue involved here is not refund of duty or an interest thereof but a simple return of the amount paid by the appellant under mistaken notion of law. This is governed by the general principles of restitution as in the case of refund of deposits, fines and penalties. I find that the Revenue is taking a contradictory stand in as muc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
