2003 (6) TMI 145 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate tribunal affirms rejection of refund claim as time-barred, stresses compliance with Customs Act.

The appellate tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to reject the refund claim as time-barred. The appellants' failure to comply with ... Refund - Limitation - Delay in filing Issues:1. Refund claim rejection by lower authorities.2. Interpretation of Section 3A of the Customs Tariff Act.3. Jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioners for refund claims.4. Application of limitation provisions under Section 27 of the Customs Act.5. Compliance with Customs Refund Application Regulations.Analysis:1. Refund Claim Rejection: The appellants, manufacturers of Asbestos sheets, filed a refund claim for excess Special Additional Duty paid on imported raw Asbestos. The claim was rejected by lower authorities due to being time-barred as it was filed beyond six months from the date of duty payment. The main contention was the date of filing the refund claim and its impact on the limitation period under Section 27 of the Customs Act.2. Interpretation of Section 3A: Section 3A of the Customs Tariff Act, inserted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, imposed a Special Additional Duty. Notification No. 35/98-Cus. limited this duty to 4% ad valorem on all goods retrospectively. The appellant claimed a refund for the excess 4% duty paid. The Revenue did not dispute the entitlement to the refund but argued on the grounds of time-bar for the claim.3. Jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioners: The appellants argued that Assistant Commissioners at New Delhi, Tughlakabad, and Faridabad had concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the refund claim as part of the same Commissionerate. However, the Revenue contended that the claim should have been submitted to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ICD Faridabad, as per Customs Refund Application Regulations.4. Limitation Provisions under Section 27: The central issue was determining the correct date for filing the refund claim to calculate the limitation period. The authorities considered the date of filing with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ICD Faridabad, as the starting point for the six-month period, leading to the claim being deemed time-barred.5. Compliance with Regulations: The appellants failed to adhere to Regulation No. 2 of the Customs Refund Application (Form) Regulations 1995, which required submitting the claim to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs having jurisdiction over the Customs Port, Airport, Land Customs Station, or Warehouse where the duty was paid. Due to their delay and negligence in filing the claim promptly, the claim was rightfully rejected as time-barred.In conclusion, the appellate tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower authorities' decision to reject the refund claim based on being time-barred. The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with jurisdictional requirements and timely submission of refund claims under the Customs Act and relevant regulations.