Refund application timeliness cannot be reopened on appeal where filing date is undisputed and respondent did not contest it.

Where the filing date of a refund application was undisputed and the revenue did not contest it, an appellate direction remitting the claim for fresh examination of timeliness under the statutory timeliness inquiry is impermissible; that direction is set aside. The finding that the excess duty arose from an acknowledged error in duty computation remains operative and must be implemented. The remainder of the impugned order addressing the substantive error in computation is to stand and be executed. The appeal is allowed partly in favour of the appellant against the procedural remittal regarding timeliness.

---

---

Issues: Whether the direction in the impugned order directing the Adjudicating Authority to verify/re-verify timeliness of the refund application under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 was legally permissible where the filing date of the refund application was not disputed and the excess duty arose from an acknowledged error in computation.

Analysis: The parties accepted applicability of Circular No. 18/2008-Cus dated 10.11.2008 regarding treatment of FOB price as cum-duty price, which established that the excess payment resulted from an error in duty computation. The Order-in-Original did not dispute that a refund application had been filed on 28.01.2009. The impugned appellate direction to the Adjudicating Authority to examine afresh the claim solely in terms of Section 27 introduced a fresh inquiry into the timeliness of the application despite the Revenue not contesting the filing date or filing a counter. Remitting or directing verification of an uncontested factual matter falls outside the scope of a first appeal when no challenge to that fact has been taken by the respondent. The portion of the impugned order that set aside the original adjudication on merits (error in computation) and directed implementation of other directions remains intact.

Conclusion: The direction to re-examine the timeliness of the refund application under Section 27 is set aside; the remainder of the impugned order stands and is to be executed. The appeal is allowed partly in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the timeliness of a refund application is undisputed and the revenue does not challenge the filing date, an appellate direction to remit or re-open the timeliness inquiry under Section 27 is impermissible and may be set aside, leaving intact decisions addressing the substantive error in duty computation.

---