https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777296 CESTAT MUMBAI - AT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order denying refund and directed refund of Rs.5,35,010 paid twice on a single import transaction. The Tribunal held that Section 27(1) of the Customs Act does not bar refund where a customs duty was inadvertently paid twice for the same taxable event, noting departmental records confirmed double payment and that CBIC/port practices treat such excess payments as deposits. The Tribunal found the lower authority failed to follow policy/procedure and wrongly rejected the claim as time-barred. en-us Fri, 22 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Aug 2025 08:32:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777296 CESTAT MUMBAI - AT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order denying refund and directed refund of Rs.5,35,010 paid twice on a single import transaction. The Tribunal held that Section 27(1) of the Customs Act does not bar refund where a customs duty was inadvertently paid twice for the same taxable event, noting departmental records confirmed double payment and that CBIC/port practices treat such excess payments as deposits. The Tribunal found the lower authority failed to follow policy/procedure and wrongly rejected the claim as time-barred. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 22 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777296