2009 (2) TMI 328 - HC - Customs

Court upholds refund claim submission timing, dismisses appeal challenging rejection of imported goods refund.

COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (IMPORT) Versus INDIAN FARMERS FERTILISER CO-OP. LTD.

The High Court of Bombay dismissed the appeal challenging the rejection of a refund claim for imported goods. The court held that the refund claim was not ... Rejection of refund claim of the appellant as being time-barred under the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - It is contended that the tribunal erred in holding that the claim is not time-barred. It is contended that the limitation runs from the date of payment of duty and not from the date of rectification. We find it difficult to accept this contention. Till the assessment order is rectified, the question of refund would not arise at all. In the present case, the assessment order was rectified on 13-12-2001 pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court dated 13-3-2001. In the present case, the refund claim was made even prior to the rectification. Therefore, the refund claim could not be said to be time-barred. - In the result, we see no merit in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The High Court of Bombay, in the 2009 case of 2009 (2) TMI 328, heard an appeal challenging an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appellant had cleared imported goods by paying duty at a rate of 50% instead of 5%, leading to a rejected refund application. The Supreme Court ordered rectification of the error under Section 154 of the Customs Act. The assessing officer later rectified the mistake, assessing the goods at 5%, but rejected the refund claim as time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal remanded the matter to consider unjust enrichment. The High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the refund claim was not time-barred as it was made before the rectification of the assessment order. The appeal was found to lack merit and was subsequently dismissed.