Appeal allowed for refund entitlement despite procedural delays, Revenue's stance deemed incorrect.

The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the appellant's entitlement to a refund. The Tribunal ruled that the rejection of the appeal as time-barred was unsustainable, highlighting that procedural delays should not hinder the right to a refund when entitlement on merits is not in question. The Revenue's insistence on obtaining re-assessment orders for the refund claim post-amendment to Section 27 of the Customs Act was deemed incorrect. The matter was remanded for processing the refund claim in line with the guidelines issued by the High Court regarding the principle of refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Rejection of appeal as time-barred by the Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (Appeals).
2. Requirement of obtaining re-assessment order for refund claim.
3. Interpretation of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 post-amendment.
4. Dispute over the time-limit for filing an appeal.
5. Applicability of the principle of refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Rejection of appeal as time-barred
The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal rejecting the appeal as time-barred. The Ld. Consultant argued that the time-limit could not extinguish the appellant's right to a refund, citing relevant case law. The Ld. AR supported the lower authorities' findings, emphasizing the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not dispute the appellant's entitlement to a refund on merits. The Assistant Commissioner's insistence on obtaining a re-assessment order was deemed incorrect as it was not a requirement post the 2011 amendment to Section 27 of the Customs Act.

Issue 2: Requirement of obtaining re-assessment order for refund claim
The Tribunal noted that the Assistant Commissioner's insistence on obtaining a re-assessment order for the refund claim was not in line with the prescribed procedure under Chapter 14 of the Customs Manual. The appellant's application for a refund was within the prescribed period, and the conditions under Section 27 were not disputed by the Revenue. The Tribunal highlighted that Section 27 does not mandate the claimant to obtain an assessment or re-assessment order, especially post the 2011 amendment.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 27 of the Customs Act post-amendment
The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue's insistence on assessment/re-assessment orders for the refund claim was not in accordance with the law post the 2011 amendment. The Tribunal found that the Revenue disregarded the legal requirements and kept insisting on unnecessary documentation, which was not mandated by Section 27 of the Customs Act.

Issue 4: Dispute over the time-limit for filing an appeal
The Tribunal ruled that the rejection of the appeal as time-barred by the Ld. First Appellate Authority was unsustainable. The Tribunal set aside the rejection, emphasizing that the appellant's right to a refund should not be hindered by procedural delays or time-limits, especially when the entitlement to the refund on merits was not in question.

Issue 5: Applicability of the principle of refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act
The Tribunal referred to a decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, stating that a claim for refund cannot be barred by limitation if a tax is paid by mistake. The Tribunal applied the principle to the case at hand, remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to process the refund claim in accordance with the guidelines issued by the High Court.

In conclusion, the appeal was treated as allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the appellant's entitlement to a refund and the incorrect insistence on unnecessary documentation by the Revenue.

---