2023 (5) TMI 206

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. The short issue raised in the present appeal is whether the refund claim of the appellant is barred by limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant filed the Bill of Entry No. 4529018 dated 23.12.2017 for import of „Heavy Melting Steel Scrap‟ under CTH 72044900 and paid normal rate of BCD @ 15%. The appellant was eligible for exemption of BCD @ 2.50% in terms of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. dated 30.06.2017 under Sl. No. 368. The appellant, therefore vide letter dated 23.01.2018 requested the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur to reassess the bill of entry and refund the excess duty paid by them. It appears that in terms of the letter the authority vide order d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....adjudicate the issue on merits. Pursuant thereto, the present impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 07.11.2022 affirming the view taken by the adjudicating authority that the refund claim has to be treated as filed on 29.04.2019 whereas the bill of entry was reassessed on 24.02.2018 which was beyond the period of one year from the date of assessment and accordingly rejected the appeal. Hence the appellant has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and perused the case records. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that they filed the request for reassessment alongwith the refund of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the purpose of melting after claiming the benefit of Not. No. 050/2017 Sl. No. 368 which attracts the BCD @ 2.5% ad valoram however during the course of assessment the CTH has been changed from 72042190 to 72044900 which is for Heavy Melting scrap. While changing the CTH at the time of assessment the Notification as mentioned above was deleted by the system due to improper serial number with the corresponding CTH. It results the BCD has been charged @ 15% instead of 2.5% and we have deposited the duty as per the assessment. In view of above facts we request before you to please re-assess the bill of entry after incorporating the Notification Number as 050/2017(CUS.) dated 30.06.2017 Sl. No. 368 and refund the excess amou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is as the refund claim, it is well within the time limit of six months from the date of payment of duty. Therefore, the excess amount of duty is paid by the appellant is ordered to be refunded." 11. On an analysis of the precedent cited at the bar and also on perusal of the record, I am of the view that the letter dated 23.01.2018 whereby the prayer for reassessment and refund of excess duty paid was made has to be treated as the date on which the refund claim has been made and therefore the same is within the period of limitation of one year as prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act. After the amendment in 2011, it is no longer necessary for an assessment or reassessment order to be made and the refund can be considered under th....