https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755858 The CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal regarding refund claim rejection on limitation grounds under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal held that the one-year limitation period does not apply when amounts are paid under protest, as Section 27 recognizes payment under protest without requiring vacation of such protest. The appellant had reversed amounts under Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 as revenue deposit under protest following departmental directions for goods clearance while challenging the penalty order in appeal. The tribunal ruled that consequential refunds of penalty and redemption fine paid under protest cannot be barred by limitation provisions, directing adjudication of the refund claim accordingly. en-us Thu, 30 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jul 2024 13:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755858 The CESTAT Allahabad allowed the appeal regarding refund claim rejection on limitation grounds under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal held that the one-year limitation period does not apply when amounts are paid under protest, as Section 27 recognizes payment under protest without requiring vacation of such protest. The appellant had reversed amounts under Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 as revenue deposit under protest following departmental directions for goods clearance while challenging the penalty order in appeal. The tribunal ruled that consequential refunds of penalty and redemption fine paid under protest cannot be barred by limitation provisions, directing adjudication of the refund claim accordingly. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 30 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755858