TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 766
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounting to Rs. 42,26,975/- (Rupees Forty Two Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Five only) paid by them on behalf of M/s. BEML, Bangalore for an import cargo clearance made vide Bill of Entry No.984004 dated 05.03.2009 through ACC, Bangalore on 06.05.2012. The claim was rejected by the lower adjudicating authority vide the Order-in-Original No.587/2012 (AC-Refunds) dated 09.10.2012, stating that the same is time-barred and that required documents were not furnished by the appellants. The brief back ground of the refund claim is that there was a clerical error in the application of exchange rate which resulted in arriving at the wrong assessable value and payment of excess duty. The appellants approached the authorities for r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments is filed by such person who has either paid or borne the duty. Therefore, the appellants filed refund cliam on 06.05.2012 in the prescribed format which came to be rejected. 2. Aggrieved by the order of rejection, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected the appeal of the appellant and hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering the facts and circumstances and the position of law. He further submitted that the appellants have furnished all the documents which were required for claiming the refund. He further submit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that the appellant filed the refund claim on 06.05.2012 after a lapse of about three years from the date of payment of duty. He further submitted that the reassessment was made on 30.12.2009 consequent to the issue of Order-in-Appeal dated 30.06.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the impugned order, I find that in the present case, the appellants have filed the refund claim on 06.05.2012 whereas originally M/s. BEML filed the refund claim which was rejected by Assistant Commissioner vide his Order-in-Original dated 13.03.2012 on the ground that BEML has neither paid the duty nor borne the duty. I also find that after the rejection of refund claim by BEML, M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll the only provision for refund under the Customs Act is Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and there is no other provision providing for a refund by the Customs authorities under the above mentioned Act. In such cases, the parties filing refund applications have to be regulated and restricted to the time limit provided under the Act. The Supreme Court has upheld the decision of this Tribunal reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1026 in the case of Miles India Ltd. v. Appellate Collector of Customs. It was held in that decision by the Tribunal that any claim filed before the Customs authorities for refund of the excise duty has to be treated under Section 27 of the Customs Act because there is no other provision providing for application for refu....