TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....62020. Meanwhile, the appellant's CHA could not file the bills of entry in time and accordingly late fee of Rs. 12,77,591/- was paid as the appellants were not aware of the waiver of late fee vide public notice cited above . On realising the mistake, the appellants filed a refund claim for the above amount on 24/08/2021. A show cause notice dated 07/01/2022 was issued to the appellant and the original Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim in terms of the show cause notice. An appeal filed by the appellants before the First Appellate Authority came to be rejected. Hence, this appeal. 3. Shri N V Ramana Rao, learned Counsel, appearing on the behalf of the appellant would submit that the Original Authority and the First Appellate A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stoms Act 1962 envisaged refund of customs duty or interest paid thereof . The late fee paid by the applicant does not take the colour of Customs duty or interest. He would also submit that the appellant have not availed the provisions for the waiver of late fee in terms of Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Regulation 4(3) of the bill of entry (electronic integrated declaration and paperless processing) Regulations , 2018 or the public notice dated 26/03/2020. He further submits that challenging the assessment order including self assessment is a prerequisite for refund claim of any amounts; as the order was not challenged, refund cannot be sanctioned under Section 27 ibid. He relies upon the following case law. * M/s ITC Limited....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....time barred in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of Mafatlal Industries 1997 (89) ELT 247 (SC); unless the original assessment is challenged, refund cannot be granted in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of ITC ltd. 2019 (368) ELT 216 (SC). It is the argument of the appellant that the department cannot retain the amount paid under a mistaken notion of law and that the refund claim is not time barred in view of the suo motu Order date 10/01/2022 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was ordered that, due to the existing pandemic, the period from 15/03/2020 to 28/02/2022 stand excluded in computing the prescribed periods of limitation . 9. I find that the issue involved here is not refund of duty....