9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012 as they had not satisfied the condition No.16 prescribed under the said notification. Later, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SRF Limited Vs. CC [2015(318) ELT 603 (SC)] decided the issue in favour of the assessee holding that they would be eligible to the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. consequently, the appellant had filed three refund claims for the period October 2014, January 2015 to February 2015 and May 2015 to June 2015. On adjudication, the refund claims were rejected by the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved, they preferred appeals before the learned Commissioner(Appeals) who though agreed that the refund claims are in order but rejected the same on the ground of unjust enrichment. Hence, the present appeals. 3.1. At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SRF Limited (supra), the appellant had filed refund claims seeking refund of the differential amount of CVD paid by the appellant on imported goods during the relevant period but the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims primarily on two grounds viz. (i) the appellant filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edabad has passed the order in their favour allowing the refund claims. 3.3. On the issue of limitation in case of four Bills of Entry involving total claim of Rs.12,00,588/-, the learned advocate has submitted that the appellant had paid the customs duty on 07.10.2014 whereas the refund claims were filed on 07.10.2015. It is his contention that in view of the Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, computing the period of limitation, the day from which the application of refund required to be filed shall be excluded. In support, he has referred to the judgment of the CEGAT in the case of Punjab Breweries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh [1985(2) TMI 263 - CEGAT, New Delhi] and Sanjay Pandurang Kalate Vs. Vistara ITCL (India) Limited [Civil Appeal No.7467 of 2023] 4. Learned AR for the Revenue has reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. The issues involved in the present appeals for consideration are whether (i) the appellant could claim refund without challenging the self-assessed Bills of Entry; (ii) the appellant had satisfied the criteria of unjust enrichment i.e. the burden of duty claimed was not passed on to the customers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edings initiated by an assessee before the Tribunal to raise this issue, even if it be a legal issue. The issue that is sought to be raised is not even the subject matter of these appeals as the sole issue that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the incidence of duty was passed on to the buyers. In all the decisions that have been referred to by the learned authorized representatives for the department only general principles regarding raising of a legal issue have been examined. In none of these decisions it has been held that even if an issue that is sought to be urged has attained finality, it can still be raised considering it to be a legal issue. The decisions relied upon by the learned authorized representatives appearing for the department, therefore, do not come to the aid of the department. 46. It has, therefore, to be held that as the order dated 23.01.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner sanctioning refund had attained finality as no appeal was filed by the department to assail this order, the department cannot be permitted to raise the issue regarding maintainability of the refund applications. 8. Similarly on the issue of unjust enrichment, after r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim for refund of duty. (1) Any person claiming refund of any duty or interest, - (a) paid by him; or (b) borne by him, may make an application in such form and manner as may be prescribed for such refund to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs, before the expiry of one year, from the date of payment of such duty or interest: Provided that where an application for refund has been made before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2011 receives the assent of the President, such application shall be deemed to have been made under sub-section (1), as it stood before the date on which the Finance Bill, 2011 receives the assent of the President and the same shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2): Provided further that the limitation of one year shall not apply where any duty or interest has been paid under protest: Provided also that where the amount of refund claimed is less than rupees one hundred, the same shall not be refunded. Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-section, "the date of payment of duty or interest in relation to a person, other than the importer, shall be construed as "the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
