Refund claim rejected as time-barred after voluntary payment of erroneous refund with interest under Section 28(1)(b)

CESTAT Ahmedabad rejected appellant's refund claim filed in 2021. The court held that appellant's voluntary payment in 2017 of erroneous refund amount with interest constituted self-appropriation under Section 28(1)(b), eliminating need for show cause notice. Since appellant failed to seek refund within prescribed limitation period after voluntary payment, the claim was time-barred. Lower authorities' concurrent findings on limitation were upheld and appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD)
2. Limitation period for refund claim
3. Characterization of the amount paid as 'deposit' or 'duty'
4. Appropriation of the amount paid
5. Applicability of Article 265 of the Constitution of India

Issue-wise Summary:

1. Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD):
The Appellant, engaged in importing Mitsubishi Air Conditioners, filed a claim for a refund of Rs. 3,79,272.40 under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the refund, noting that the Appellant had paid all duties and submitted necessary documents. However, an inter-departmental audit later flagged non-fulfillment of a condition in Para 2(b) of the Notification, leading the Appellant to deposit Rs. 4,06,393/- (refund amount plus interest).

2. Limitation Period for Refund Claim:
The Appellant's reminder letter dated 11.10.2021, treated as a refund application, was filed after the permissible period of one year from the date of payment. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the refund claim as time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, noting that the refund application submitted on 11.10.2021 was hit by the limitation prescribed in Para 2(c) of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.

3. Characterization of the Amount Paid as 'Deposit' or 'Duty':
The Appellant argued that the amount paid was a deposit, not a duty, and thus not subject to the limitation period u/s 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellant contended that the payment was made under protest and without any assessment or adjudication. However, the Tribunal found this argument legally unsustainable, noting that the amount was paid voluntarily in response to the audit observation.

4. Appropriation of the Amount Paid:
The Tribunal referred to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, which states that no show cause notice is required if the duty is paid voluntarily. The Tribunal found that the amount paid by the Appellant was a self-appropriation for the erroneous refund and did not require further show cause notice. The Tribunal cited judgments from the CESTAT, Mumbai, and Chennai, supporting this view.

5. Applicability of Article 265 of the Constitution of India:
The Appellant argued that the retention of Rs. 4,06,393/- by the Department violated Article 265 of the Constitution, which mandates that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the amount was paid voluntarily and the refund claim was time-barred.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, rejecting the Appellant's refund claim as time-barred and maintaining that the amount paid was a voluntary act, not requiring further show cause notice. The appeal was dismissed.

---