2015 (6) TMI 220 - AT - Customs

Appeal Denied: Time-Barred Refund Claims for Export Duty Excess

M/s Sesa Goa Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port) Kolkata

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding time-barred refund claims for excess export duty paid due to short shipment of goods. It held that the ... Denial of refund claim - Bar of limitation - Payment of excess export duty as there was short shipment of export goods - Held that:- Commissioner(Appeals) has recorded a categorical finding in relation to the plea of the Appellant that what have been collected from them satisfy the definition of 'duty' as prescribed under Section 2(15) of the Customs Act, 1962, hence the refund of the same is governed by the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. He has observed that since it is not a case of collection of duty under the provision of law declared later as ultra vires, hence the provisions of Section 27 of Customs Act,. 1962 is applicable to the present refund claims in view of the principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries' case (1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA). We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. - Decided against Assessee. Issues:1. Time-barred refund claims for excess export duty paid due to short shipment of goods.2. Interpretation of the definition of 'duty' under Section 2(15) of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Applicability of provisions for refund under the Customs Act, 1962.4. Legal limitations on refund claims based on precedent judgments.Issue 1: Time-barred refund claimsThe appeal was filed against the rejection of refund claims for excess export duty paid due to short shipment of goods. The appellants claimed they paid duty erroneously and filed for refunds after the prescribed period of six months from the duty payment date. The refund claims were initially rejected on the grounds of being time-barred.Issue 2: Interpretation of 'duty' under Section 2(15)The appellant's advocate argued that the amount collected as 'duty' did not meet the definition of duty under Section 2(15) of the Customs Act, 1962. He contended that the erroneously collected amount should be refunded, even if the claims were filed after the six-month period. The advocate cited various case laws to support this argument.Issue 3: Applicability of Customs Act provisionsThe Special Counsel for the Revenue argued that since duty was initially paid and later claimed as a refund due to short shipment, the refund claims should adhere to the time limit prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. He emphasized that any refund related to excess duty payment must follow the Customs Act's refund provisions. The Counsel asserted that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited by the statute and referred to a Supreme Court judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India to support the time limitation on refunds.Issue 4: Legal limitations on refund claimsAfter hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the collected amount satisfied the definition of 'duty' under the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal upheld the Ld. Commissioner's finding that the refund falls under the Customs Act's provisions and is subject to the time limit specified in Section 27. Citing the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries' case, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating it lacked merit.This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and legal limitations when claiming refunds for excess duty payments, emphasizing the need to file refund claims within the prescribed time limits. The interpretation of the definition of 'duty' under the Customs Act, 1962 plays a crucial role in determining the eligibility for refunds, as evidenced by the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's decision based on legal principles and precedent judgments.