Tribunal allows appeal on refund claim rejection due to limitation period; appeal considered protest against duty assessment.

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal in a case concerning the rejection of a refund claim based on a limitation period after reassessment of bills of entry. The Member (Judicial) found the rejection of the refund claim as time-barred to be unsustainable, citing that filing an appeal against the assessment of the bill of entry should be considered a protest in paying the duty. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any necessary consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Refund claim rejection based on limitation period after reassessment of bills of entry.

In this case, the appellant filed 5 Bills of Entry for the import of "Digitizer" without availing the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-CE (Sl. No. 312). After a request for reassessment was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) directed the lower authority to consider the benefit of the Notification. The bills of entry were reassessed, and the appellant sought a refund of the excess duty paid amounting to Rs. 29,57,931. The refund claim was rejected by the authorities citing it as beyond the one-year limitation period from the date of reassessment. The appellant approached the Tribunal aggrieved by this decision.

Analysis:
The appellant contended that the duty was paid under protest, and hence, the limitation prescribed under section 27(2) of the Customs Act should not apply. Citing the case of Bayshore Glass Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Kolkata, the appellant argued that under Article 265 of the Constitution, tax collected in contravention must be refunded to the assessee. The appellant requested the Tribunal to allow the appeal based on these arguments.

The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim based on the limitation period. However, the Member (Judicial) noted that when an appeal is filed against the assessment of the bill of entry, it should be considered as a protest in paying the duty, as per the precedent set by the Tribunal in the case of Bayshore Glass Trading Pvt. Ltd. The Member (Judicial) found the rejection of the refund claim on the ground of being time-barred as unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief deemed necessary.

---