Appeal allowed as duty paid under protest, refund claim not time-barred. Tribunal grants relief.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the duty paid by the appellants was under protest, thus the refund claim was not time-barred. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and granted consequential relief to the appellants in the case concerning the valuation of imported goods, refund claim, and payment of duty under protest.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of Imported Goods
2. Refund Claim and Limitation Period
3. Payment of Duty Under Protest

Summary:

Valuation of Imported Goods:
The appellants filed a Bill of Entry for the clearance of Intel Dot Stations, declaring the value at US $ 61 per piece. The assessing authority re-determined the value at US $ 85 per piece, which was later re-fixed by the Commissioner(Appeals) at US $ 75 per piece. The Tribunal, in its Final Order, upheld the appellants' declared value of US $ 61.

Refund Claim and Limitation Period:
Based on the Tribunal's decision, the appellants filed a refund claim for the excess duties paid. The refund claim was rejected by the respondent on the grounds that it was filed beyond the stipulated time limit of six months as laid down in Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld this rejection, leading to the present appeal.

Payment of Duty Under Protest:
The appellants argued that the duty was paid under protest, as indicated by their appeal against the valuation. They cited the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI and other Tribunal decisions, asserting that filing an appeal itself amounts to payment under protest. The Tribunal agreed with this view, referencing similar cases such as Hutchison Max Telecom Pvt. Ltd. and Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that the limitation period does not apply when duty is paid under protest.

Judgment:
The Tribunal found that the duty paid by the appellants was indeed under protest due to their successful challenge of the valuation. Consequently, the refund claim could not be denied on the grounds of being time-barred. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---