TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... final assessment, the appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) who held that Customs duty should be calculated on the quantity of LNG actually imported into India and the final assessment should be done on the basis of on shore receipt quantity and not on the basis of quantity mentioned in the bills of lading and accordingly, allowed the appeal vide order-in-appeal dated 04.12.2013. Being aggrieved with the said decision, the department preferred appeal before this Tribunal and the same was rejected vide order dated 08.09.2014. Thereafter, the appellant filed claim for refund of differential duty. The refund claim was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that the appellant became eligible for refund after the order-in-appeal dated 04.12.2013 passed by Commissioner (Appeal) whereas, the refund claim was filed by the appellant on 09.09.2015. Therefore, the refund claim was held as time barred as the same was filed beyond one year from the relevant date. Being aggrieved by order-in-original dated 04.12.2015, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal) who agreeing with the findings of the original authority, rejected the appeal filed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and every refund matters. As regards the submission of ld. Counsel that the refund claim was filed within one year from the date of receipt of order of the Tribunal, after deciding the issue on merit, he submits that the issue on merit was decided in favour of the appellant by the Commissioner (Appeal) vide order dated 04.12.2013. Thereafter, the appellant became eligible for refund and therefore, the period of one year shall be computed from 04.12.2013 and not from the Tribunal's order dated 08.09.2014 which was received on 29.09.2014. Therefore, even on this fact also, the refund was filed beyond one year from the relevant date. Hence it is clearly time barred. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record. We find that the limited issue to be decided by us is, whether refund claim filed by the appellant is governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and consequently it is time-barred or otherwise. We find that though the amount of refund claim is related to duty paid and the said amount is customs duty including the duty on the actual receipt quantity. Therefore, the entire amount paid by the appellant is nothing but customs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee was not in the nature of refund. This was the view taken by the Tribunal in a previous decision in the case of Miles India Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector of Customs but it was assailed before this Court. The appeal was withdrawn. This Court observed that the Customs Authorities, acting under the Act, were justified in disallowing the claim for refund as they were bound by the period of limitation provided therefore in the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. If really the payment of the duty was under a mistake of law, the party might seek recourse to such alternative remedy as it might be advised. See the observations of this Court in Miles India Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector of Customs [1987(30) E.L.T.641 (S.C.) = 1985 E.C.R. 289]. 7. In the aforesaid view of the matter the Tribunal was right. The appeal, therefore, has no merits and it is accordingly not entertained and dismissed. There is no order as to costs." From the above judgment, it is clear that even if there is refund of duty which was recovered without authority of law, the refund made before the departmental authority, limitation provided under Customs/Central Excise Act shall be applicab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said authority must necessarily operate within the four corners of the said Act and cannot have recourse to Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the delayed application rightly rejected as time barred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Amines and Plasticizers Limited held that refund claims filed beyond the period prescribed under Customs Act, 1962, the High Court order directing the Revenue to ignore the period of limitation and dispose of the refund claim stands set aside in the light of law declared in Mafatlal's case and the refund claim was held to be dismissed as barred by time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company - 1996 (84) ELT 401 (SC) held that the High Courts under writ jurisdiction cannot direct the Customs authorities to ignore the time limit prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, even though High Court itself may not be bound by the time limit of the said Section, Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above judgment, only the High Court, under writ jurisdiction, can exercise the inherent power provided in it but the said power cannot be enjoyed by the Tribu....