2013 (5) TMI 10 - AT - Customs

Refund claim appeal dismissed due to time limitation lapse on duty payment for re-exported goods

The appeal filed by M/s. Wilhelm Textiles India Pvt. Ltd. against the rejection of their refund claim was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeal). The ... Refund claim rejected as time bared - whether limitation under section 27 of the Custom Act will be applicable? - Held that:- Appellant being importer filed Bill of entry No. 864954 dated 28.05.2010. Since the goods were found mis-declared, case was Adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner by the order in original 26.08.2010. Thereafter goods were ordered to be re-exported to the original supplier. The amount of Rs. 3,26,954/- was paid by the importer as duty against the Bill of entry in question. Since amount was paid as duty to Custom by the importer, the provision of section 27 of the Custom Act, are applicable to the present case. Since the duty was paid 01.06.2010 and refund was filed on 26.09.2011 case is hit by the time limitation as provided under the Custom Act. Accordingly the Commissioner (Appeal) has rightly rejected their appeal on the ground of time bar. Against assessee. Issues:1. Rejection of refund claim by lower authority.2. Applicability of section 27 of the Customs Act.3. Time limitation for filing refund claim.Analysis:1. The appellant, M/s. Wilhelm Textiles India Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against the rejection of their refund claim by the lower authority. The refund claim was based on the payment of Rs. 3,26,954 as duty against a Bill of Entry, which was subsequently re-exported. The original authority rejected the claim as time-barred, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal).2. The main contention revolved around the applicability of section 27 of the Customs Act. The appellant argued that since the goods were re-exported and the amount paid was a deposit, the time limitation under section 27 should not apply. The appellant relied on previous tribunal decisions to support their argument. However, the Authorized Representative for the Revenue contended that the duty payment and subsequent refund claim fell within the purview of section 27.3. The judge, after hearing both sides, analyzed the facts of the case. It was noted that the appellant filed the refund claim on 21.09.2011, after paying the duty on 01.06.2010 against the Bill of Entry. The goods were re-exported following an order by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. Considering that the duty payment was made to Customs and the timeline for filing the claim exceeded the statutory limit, the judge concluded that the provisions of section 27 were indeed applicable. As a result, the Commissioner (Appeal) rightfully rejected the appeal on the grounds of being time-barred, noting that the cited case laws were not applicable due to factual distinctions.In conclusion, the appeal was rejected based on the application of section 27 of the Customs Act and the time limitation for filing the refund claim.