TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 394
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und of short shipment of goods covered under Bill of Entry No. 118887 dt. 12.04.2000. The adjudicating authority found that the duty was paid on 31.5.2000 and refund application was filed by the appellants in the CRARS on 04.12.2000. So, the same was found to be beyond prescribed period of 6 months in terms of Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962. The refund claim was rejected being time barred. Aggrieved by the adjudication order dt. 16.4.2002 the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant, therefore the appellant is before me. 3. Shri Kevin Shah, Ld Chartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the refund claim is in respect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Counsel was not put forth either before the original authority or before the Commissioner (Appeals) therefore he is not entitled to raise this new ground before this Tribunal. Secondly, even though the goods were not imported but admittedly the amount paid by the appellant is in the form of Customs duty and under the account head thereof. As per Section 27, refund of duty has to pass through the provisions of Section 27 of the Act, there is no other provision of refund in the Custom Act. Therefore the present refund is also governed by Section 27 accordingly limitation of six months is applicable. Since the appellant has admittedly filed the refund claim after the stipulated period of six months, the same was correctly rejected by both the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt other than the duty. If this is accepted then Section 27 of the Act will stand redundant, as in every refund matter Section 27 shall not apply for the reason that any amount which is refundable is not a duty and all such amount shall be deemed to be paid other than the duty. Therefore in my considered view at the time of payment the appellant paid the amount under a particular head such as duty and when subsequently it is found that this amount is not payable, the same amount stand refundable to the assessee and such refund is treated as refund of Customs duty only. Therefore the provisions of refund of such duty is only provided under Section 27 and there is no any other provision prevails. In my view any amount to be refunded, shall b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecision will be guided by the general law and the date of limitation would be the starting point when the mistake or the error comes to light. But in making claims for refund before the departmental authority, an assessee is bound within four corners of the Statute and the period of limitation prescribed in the Central Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder must be adhered to. The authorities functioning under the Act are bound by the provisions of the Act. If the proceedings are taken under the Act by the department, the provisions of limitation prescribed in the Act will prevail. It may, however, be open to the department to initiate proceedings in the Civil Court for recovery of the amount due to the department in case when such a re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ake of law, the appellant may seek recourse to such alternative remedy as it may be advised. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn . (iii) Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Anam Electrical Manufacturing Co. 1997 (90) ELT 260 (S.C.) the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to limitation under Section 11B lays down the following guidelines : Where refund application was filed by?(1) manufacturer/purchaser beyond the statutory time limit of Section 11B/27 ibid. (iv) Bajaj Foods Ltd. Vs. Commissioner 2015 (320) E.L.T. A197(Guj.) wherein it was held that- The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that the limitation period prescribed under the Limitation Act would not apply for the refund of export cess which was paid by....