2023 (12) TMI 612 - AT - Customs

Appeal Granted: Refund Issued for Excess Customs Duty Paid Due to Glitch, Despite Late Filing Beyond Limitation Period.

Esdee Paints Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

The court allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, granting a refund for the excess customs duty paid due to a technical glitch, despite the ... Refund of Excess Customs Duty paid - application for refund filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that the decision relied upon by learned AR in the matter of Cummins Technologies India Pvt. Limited vs. UOI [2023 (9) TMI 199 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] pertaining to not pursuing remedies or due diligence was in that matter pertained to statutory period of filing appeal before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court having expired and the question therefore of entertaining writ was refused. Additionally the mistake was not considered bonafide and due care and diligence was found lacking therefore the Hon’ble Court viewed that claim was correctly rejected on the ground of limitation as per applicable Section 27 read with Section 128 of Customs Act, 1962. As against this, Hon’ble Gujarat High Court considered two years a reasonable period when the duty was paid by mistake. In the instant case, this court finds that payment was made twice due to technical glitch in the Customs payment system. The appellants to file refund pursued the matter with bank to get confirmation of double payment, as well as taking certification from Chartered Accountant on the basis of accounts to indicate such double payment and therefore, lack of diligence is not indicated on the face of record. Appeal allowed. Issues involved: Excess duty of customs paid, refund application beyond the limitation period, bonafide mistake in payment, due diligence in pursuing remedies.Summary:Excess Duty of Customs Paid: The matter pertained to the appellant making excess duty payment on the Customs gateway due to a technical glitch in the system, resulting in double payment on the same date. The receipts for both payments were generated at different times, and the appellant filed a refund application beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.Refund Application Beyond Limitation Period: The appellant relied on various legal precedents, including a decision by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, emphasizing that the refund for the amount paid without authority of law should be allowed within a reasonable time, even if the limitation period has expired. The court noted that the appellant had diligently pursued the matter with the bank and obtained a Chartered Accountant certificate to support the claim of double payment, indicating lack of negligence on their part.Bonafide Mistake and Due Diligence: The court distinguished a previous case where the claim for refund was rejected due to lack of bonafide mistake and due diligence in pursuing remedies. In the present case, the court found that the double payment was a result of a technical glitch, and the appellant had taken necessary steps to confirm the mistake and provide evidence through a Chartered Accountant certificate. Therefore, the court decided to follow the cited legal decisions and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.Conclusion: The court, after considering the submissions and legal precedents, allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the lack of negligence in pursuing the refund for the excess duty paid. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 13.12.2023.