Appeal granted, refund claims timely filed after seizure exclusion.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner's decision to reject the refund claims as untimely. It held that the claims were filed within the statutory time limit after excluding the period during which the necessary documents were seized by the Customs Department. The Tribunal directed further processing of the refund claims, emphasizing the exclusion of the seizure period from the limitation calculation.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness of the refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Impact of seizure of documents on the ability to file refund claims.
3. Compliance with the conditions set out in Notification No. 102/2007-Cus and its amendments.

Detailed Analysis:

Timeliness of the Refund Claim:
The central issue in this case is whether the refund claims were filed within the statutory time limit prescribed by Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that the delay in filing the refund claims was due to the seizure of the necessary documents by the Customs Department. The documents were seized on 10.03.2017 and returned on 11.01.2018. The appellant filed the refund claims on 22.02.2018, which was beyond the one-year statutory limit from the date of payment of duty.

Impact of Seizure of Documents:
The appellant contended that the delay in filing the refund claims was not due to their fault but because the documents required for filing the claims were seized by the Customs Department. The appellant cited multiple correspondences requesting the return of the documents, which were eventually returned on 11.01.2018. The appellant relied on several judicial decisions, including Stargold International, Gravita India Ltd., and Kaamdaa Impex, to argue that the period during which the documents were seized should be excluded from the limitation period.

Compliance with Notification No. 102/2007-Cus:
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claims on the grounds that they were filed beyond the one-year statutory limit and did not comply with the conditions set out in Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. Specifically, the Commissioner noted that the invoices did not have the required endorsement stating that no credit of the additional duty of customs would be admissible. The Commissioner also observed that the appellant could have filed the refund claims based on their book of accounts, even without the seized documents.

Judgment:
The Tribunal considered the arguments and the impugned order. It noted that the appellant was unable to file the refund claims within the prescribed period due to the seizure of documents. The Tribunal found no merit in the observation that the refund claims could have been filed without the seized documents, as Section 27(1A) of the Customs Act requires the claims to be accompanied by specific documents. The Tribunal cited the Custom Manual, 2018, and Regulation 2 of the Customs Refund Application (Form) Regulation, 1995, which mandate the submission of complete documentation for refund claims.

The Tribunal referred to the decisions of the Rajasthan High Court in Gravita India Ltd. and the Madras High Court in Kaamdaa Impex, which held that the period of limitation should be considered from the date the necessary documents were made available by the Customs Department. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant could not have complied with the condition for filing the refund claims due to the seizure of documents.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the refund claims were filed within the stipulated time after excluding the period during which the documents were seized. The Tribunal directed the lower authorities to process the refund claims on merits, considering the exclusion of the period of seizure from the limitation period.

---