2001 (4) TMI 238 - AT - Customs

Appellate Tribunal rejects refund claim for export cess on rice, citing time limitation rules.

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai ruled in favor of the Asstt. Collector, rejecting a claim for refund of export cess on rice due to being filed beyond ... Refund of excise duty on export - limitation for refund claims - refund under Section 26 - reimportation/returned goods and six months from order for clearance - refund under Section 27 - general refund and six months from date of payment - shipping bill filing does not complete exportRefund under Section 26 - reimportation/returned goods and six months from order for clearance - shipping bill filing does not complete export - Claim for refund does not fall under Section 26 because the goods were not exported and the primary conditions of Section 26 are not satisfied. - HELD THAT: - Section 26 contemplates refund where goods exported are returned or reimported within the statutory period and an application is made within six months from the date on which the proper officer makes an order for clearance of the goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) treated the cancelled shipping bill date as the relevant triggering event for Section 26. The Tribunal finds that the goods were never exported and the primary conditions for Section 26 are therefore not satisfied; mere filing of a shipping bill and payment of cess does not amount to completion of export or bring the matter within Section 26. [Paras 3, 5]Section 26 is not applicable as the goods were not exported and its conditions are not met.Refund under Section 27 - general refund and six months from date of payment - limitation for refund claims - The refund claim falls under Section 27 and is barred by limitation as it was filed beyond six months from the relevant date of payment of duty. - HELD THAT: - Having held that Section 26 does not apply, the claim must be considered under the general refund provision, Section 27. The applicable limitation for a Section 27 claim is reckoned from the relevant date, namely the date of payment of duty. The cess was paid on 1531993 and the refund claim was filed on 17111993, which is beyond the sixmonth period prescribed for filing a refund under the general provision. Consequently, the claim is timebarred. [Paras 5, 6]Claim is to be governed by Section 27 and is barred by limitation.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the Commissioner (Appeals) order is set aside and the Asstt. Collector's order rejecting the refund claim as barred by limitation is restored. The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai ruled in favor of the Asstt. Collector, rejecting a claim for refund of export cess on rice as it was filed beyond the six-month limitation period. The claim was considered to fall under Section 27, not Section 26, as the rice was not exported. The Commissioner's order was set aside, and the original decision was restored.