2003 (6) TMI 398 - AT - Customs

Refund claim rejection upheld for time-barred issue; goods not abandoned pre-clearance. Duty payment not provisional.

VD. INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim as time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act. It clarified that Section 23(2) did not apply as ... Remission of duty - Refund - Limitation Issues:1. Refund claim rejected as time-barred.2. Applicability of Section 23(2) of the Customs Act for refund.3. Provisional assessment of duty and time-barred refund claim.Analysis:Issue 1: Refund claim rejected as time-barredThe case involved an appeal regarding the rejection of a refund claim by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refund) on the grounds of being time-barred. The appellant had imported calculator parts, and after a re-assessment by the Customs officer, paid a higher duty amount. Subsequently, the appellant sought a refund of the initially paid duty amount. The Tribunal observed that the refund claim filed in April 2000 for the duty paid in December 1996 was indeed time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act.Issue 2: Applicability of Section 23(2) of the Customs Act for refundThe appellant argued that the relinquishment of title to the goods under Section 23(2) of the Customs Act before clearance for home consumption exempted them from duty payment. However, the Tribunal noted that this provision was not invoked in the refund application and was not pressed before the lower authorities. The Tribunal clarified that Section 23(2) applies when the goods are abandoned before an order for clearance under Section 47 is passed, which was not the case here. Therefore, the contention that the duty amount ceased to be payable upon abandonment of goods was deemed untenable.Issue 3: Provisional assessment of duty and time-barred refund claimThe appellant also argued that the duty assessment was provisional, thus the time bar provisions should not apply to the refund claim. However, the Tribunal found that the duty was paid upon self-assessment under Section 17(4) of the Act, and there was no provisional assessment under Section 18. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the refund claim was indeed time-barred under Section 27. The appellant's plea that the refund claim was not hit by limitation as the matter was in CEGAT was deemed abandoned, and the claim was rejected.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim as time-barred, clarified the inapplicability of Section 23(2) for refund in this case, and affirmed that the duty payment was not provisional, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.