https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761821 The CESTAT Hyderabad rejected the appellant's refund claim for double payment of customs duty caused by ICEGATE system error. Despite the appellant paying duty twice due to technical malfunction - first payment on 10.01.2020 not being appropriated against the Bill of Entry, necessitating second payment on 17.01.2020 - the Tribunal held that excess payment constituted duty, not deposit. Following Mafatlal Industries Ltd precedent, Section 27 of Customs Act applied with full force including limitation provisions. The refund claim was time-barred as filed beyond the one-year statutory period. The Tribunal emphasized that being a creature of statute, it must function within statutory boundaries unlike constitutional courts with wider jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32. en-us Wed, 13 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Nov 2024 11:10:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761821 The CESTAT Hyderabad rejected the appellant's refund claim for double payment of customs duty caused by ICEGATE system error. Despite the appellant paying duty twice due to technical malfunction - first payment on 10.01.2020 not being appropriated against the Bill of Entry, necessitating second payment on 17.01.2020 - the Tribunal held that excess payment constituted duty, not deposit. Following Mafatlal Industries Ltd precedent, Section 27 of Customs Act applied with full force including limitation provisions. The refund claim was time-barred as filed beyond the one-year statutory period. The Tribunal emphasized that being a creature of statute, it must function within statutory boundaries unlike constitutional courts with wider jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 13 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761821