TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 1265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Duty and thereafter, sent the sample for analysis and after the Report of the Laboratory came, it was found that the impugned goods do not attract Anti Dumping Duty. Thereafter, the appellant filed refund claim before the Assistant Commissioner who vide his order rejected the refund claim and the order of rejecting the said refund claim was received by the appellant on 31.01.2020 and thereafter the appellant filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on 20.03.2020 which is within the stipulated period of 60 days as prescribed in Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was very much well within the period of limitation and the dismissal of the appeal as time barred by the Ld. Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mple was collected sent to CSIR-Kolkata vide letter C No 307/CONCOR/19 dated 11.01.2019. The CSIR-Kolkata vide Ref No. GC/TCC/TR-3140/19- 20 dated 11.09.2019 gave its report in favour of the appellant i.e. sample is processed glass meant for decorative/industrial/automotive purposes . Thereafter, the appellant vide letter dated 19.12.19, requested the department to re-assess the Bill of Entry no. 9422155 dated 26.12.18 on the basis of test sample report of CSIR Kolkata dated 11.09.2019. The appellant also filed the present appeals on 20.03.2020 while giving reference to the Standing Order No 02/2020 dated 22.01.2020 issued by the O/o Commissioner of Customs, Sahnewal, Ludhiana on basis of final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or this submission, he relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. ITC Limited 1993 (67) ELT 3 (S.C.) wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court has held as under:- Bar of limitation as provided for in Section 11B of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 not applicable when assessee not guilty of any laches in claiming refund - Article 226 of Constitution of India. It has been settled by this Court that where excess duty was not payable by the party under the provisions of a statute but had in fact been paid under a mistake of law, the party has a right to recover it and there is a corresponding legal obligation on the part of the Government to refund the excess duty so collected because the collection in suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jected the refund claim and the order of rejecting the said refund claim was received by the appellant on 31.01.2020 and thereafter the appellant filed appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on 20.03.2020 which is within the stipulated period of 60 days as prescribed in Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, in my considered view, the appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was very much well within the period of limitation and the dismissal of the appeal as time barred by the Ld. Commissioner is not sustainable in law, therefore, I set-aside the impugned order by remanding the case back to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to decide the same wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
