TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 848
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....payable from the date of deposit of duty when it is paid during investigation. 3. Shri S.N. Gohil, learned Superintendent (Authorised Representative) appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that against the same impugned order, Revenue had also filed appeal for the portion of the order whereby interest was granted from the date of order till the date of sanction of refund. He submits that said Revenue's appeal was disposed of by dismissing vide Final Order No. A/11273/2018 dated 26.06.2018. Citing this judgment, he submits that this bench has already considered the impugned order and conclusively held that interest is payable only as per Section 35FF and according to which for interest the period will be reckoned after three months from the date of order. Therefore, the issue has already been settled that before the said date, interest is not payable from the date of deposit. He also relied on the judgment of this bench in the case of Petronet LNG Limited vs. CC, Ahmedabad - 2019 (369) ELT 791 (Tri. Ahmd.). 4. Heard both sides and perused the record. I find that this bench against the very same impugned order, dealing with the part portion of the impugned order, passed the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....35FF according to which the interest is payable from three months of the order by which the demand was set-aside. Therefore, there is no question of interest from the date of deposit. A similar issue has been considered by the Division Bench in the case of Petronet LNG Limited (supra), wherein the following order has been passed:- "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 duty only irrespective to the fact that certain portion of the duty was not payable. Under the Customs Act, any amount which is refundable has to pass the test provided under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the said Act, there is no other provisions made for refund of any amount which was paid either without authority of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laim 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 applicable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that authorities functioning under an Act is bound by its provisions and any refund proceedings beyond the limitation provided under the Customs/Central Excise Act, the same can be initiated in the Civil Court. Accordingly, the time limit under the Customs Act is applicable. We are also of the vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company - 1996 (84) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) 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 Tribunal. In the case of Paros Electronics Pvt. Limited v. UOI - 1996 (83) E.L.T. 261 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that customs authorities cannot grant refund, being a creation of statute they are bound by limitation of Section 27 of the Customs Act. 5. On the analysis of above judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the gist is that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... one year shall be computed from the date of issue of such order; (b) where the duty becomes refundable as a consequence of any judgment, decree, order or direction of the appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal or any court, the limitation of one year shall be computed from the date of such judgment, decree, order or direction; As per clause (b) of sub Section (1B) of Section 27, where the duty became refundable as a consequence of any judgment, decree, order or direction of the appellate authority, the limitation of one year shall be computed from the date of such judgment, decree, order or direction. In the present case, the demand of duty on short imported goods stands set aside as per the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and as a consequence, the appellant become eligible for refund of the said amount. Therefore, in terms of clause (b) of sub-section (1B) of Section 27, the period of one year shall be computed from the date of Commissioner (Appeals) order. Accordingly, the refund application filed beyond one year from that date is clearly time barred. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dena Snuff Pvt. Limited v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2003 (157) E....