https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335250 The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appellant's refund claim, ruling it time-barred under Section 27(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Despite arguments that the excess payment was not duty, citing relevant cases, the Tribunal found the payment constituted duty, aligning with precedents like Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Sarita Handa Exports. As per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, refund applications exceeding the specified period are only permissible if related to an unconstitutional provision, which was not the case here. The appeal was dismissed based on established legal principles and court precedents. en-us Fri, 23 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Nov 2016 09:20:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335250 The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appellant's refund claim, ruling it time-barred under Section 27(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Despite arguments that the excess payment was not duty, citing relevant cases, the Tribunal found the payment constituted duty, aligning with precedents like Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Sarita Handa Exports. As per Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, refund applications exceeding the specified period are only permissible if related to an unconstitutional provision, which was not the case here. The appeal was dismissed based on established legal principles and court precedents. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 23 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335250