2023 (5) TMI 206 - AT - Customs

Tribunal allows refund claim by Synergy Steels Limited, emphasizing post-2011 amendment rules.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by M/s Synergy Steels Limited, holding that their initial request for reassessment constituted the refund claim within the ... Refund the excess duty paid - rejection on the ground of time limitation - refund claim has been filed beyond one year from the date of reassessment dated 24.02.2018 - Section 27 of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- The authorities actually reassessed the bill of entry on 24.02.2018 and found that the appellant had paid excess duty of Rs. 3,84,921/-, it was therefore obligatory on the part of the authority to refund the said excess amount recovered from the appellant in terms of the prayer made by them for reassessment as well as refund of excess duty amount. The judgement cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant in Wolkem India Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin [[2019 (8) TMI 1044 - CESTAT CHENNAI]] wherein on similar facts a contention was raised that in view of deletion of words “in pursuance of an order of assessment” in Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 with effect from 08.04.2011, the production of assessment order was not necessary, the Tribunal upheld the contention observing that nowhere in Section 27 it has been prescribed that the claimant should obtain either an order of assessment or reassessment as a condition precedent for claiming refund, particularly post 2011 amendment, that condition having been done away with. The letter dated 23.01.2018 whereby the prayer for reassessment and refund of excess duty paid was made has to be treated as the date on which the refund claim has been made and therefore the same is within the period of limitation of one year as prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act. After the amendment in 2011, it is no longer necessary for an assessment or reassessment order to be made and the refund can be considered under the provisions of Section 27 of the Act. Here, the appellant has paid the excess amount because of an error in EDI system whereby the benefit of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus., was not appended and the same was brought to the notice of the authorities concerned vide letter dated 23.01.2018 alongwith the claim for refund of the amount wrongly paid. In the facts of the case, the authority is duty bound to refund such amount as was ascertained by virtue of the reassessment. The authorities below have wrongly arrived at the decision that the refund claim was made by the appellant on 29.04.2019 and the same was barred by time, being beyond the period of one year from the date of reassessment on 24.02.2018. Appeal allowed. Issues:The appeal challenges the rejection of a refund claim as time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.Summary:The appellant, M/s Synergy Steels Limited, imported 'Heavy Melting Steel Scrap' and sought a refund of excess duty paid due to a change in classification. The appellant's initial request for reassessment and refund was made on 23.01.2018, with a reminder sent on 29.04.2019. The authorities reassessed the bill of entry on 24.02.2018 but failed to refund the excess amount. The refund claim was treated as filed on 29.04.2019, beyond the one-year limit from the reassessment date, leading to rejection. The Tribunal found that the initial request on 23.01.2018 constituted the refund claim, within the limitation period. The Tribunal cited precedents post-2011 amendment, stating assessment/reassessment orders are not prerequisites for refund claims. The appellant's claim for refund was upheld, emphasizing the authority's duty to refund the excess amount identified during reassessment. The decision highlighted the principle that authorities cannot retain tax amounts collected without legal authority. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed on 2nd May 2023.