TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1484
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplicable duties of customs relating to aforesaid two B/Es, before clearance of the goods from Customs control. In respect of both the imports the total duty of Rs.5,35,010/- was paid on 29.12.2018; however, inadvertently the appellants had paid the duty on the same imports again on 31.12.2018. On realising the error of making double payment for same imports, they had filed a refund claim on 14.01.2020 in Centralized Refund Cell-I for claiming refund of duty paid for second time for an amount of Rs. Rs.5,35,010/-. The adjudicating authority after verification of the double payment of the customs duty with Senior Account Officer/e-PAO, NCH, Delhi and other sections of the Custom House had found that the refund claim has been filed beyond one year and since the appellants had not preferred refund claim within the stipulated time, he rejected the refund claim as time barred under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 vide Order-in-Original No.599/2021/AM(I) dated 22.01.2021. Being aggrieved, the appellants had filed an appeal against the said order of the original authority, which was disposed of by the learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imits within which the importer is required to file the refund application, allowing refund to the importer filed beyond such time limit under Section 27 ibid, is not permissible. Accordingly, he submitted that impugned order is sustainable and prayed for rejection of the appeal filed by the appellant. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The additional submission made in the form written paper book in this case was also perused carefully. 6. The short issue for determination before the Tribunal is whether the amount of Rs. 5,35,010/- paid by the appellants towards import duty liability for the imports under two specific Bills of Entry No.9454115 and No.9449124, twice on 29.12.2018 and again on 31.12.2018, is eligible for refund or not? 7. Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 governs matters of levy of customs duty and Section 27 ibid relates to refund of duty. In order to appreciate the issues under dispute, the specific legal provisions of such Sections are extracted given below for ease of reference: LEVY OF, AND EXEMPTION FROM, CUSTOMS DUTIES "Dutiable goods. Section 12. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, or any other l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. Remark SBI 29.12.2018 9454113 2025410165 5,02,131/- Single payment SBI 31.12.2018 9454113 2025410165 5,02,131/- Single payment SBI 29.12.2018 9449124 2025406034 32,879/- Single payment SBI 31.12.2018 9449124 2025406034 32,879/- Single payment 10. In respect of confirmation of double payment of duty from concerned bank, attention is invited to para (4) of Public Notice No. 105/2020 dated 25.08.2020 wherein it has been directed that if any verification/confirmation report from bank is not received within 15 days from the date of the custom-made to bank in this record, the refund may be processed on the basis of verification reports as provided under clause 2(a) to 2(c) of the said PN and considering other facts and evidence is available on record. In the instant case, the email dated 25.07.2020 was sent to the Branch Manager of State Bank of India, New Delhi (Code: 08087), however, no reply has been received till date. xxx xxx xxx xxx 13. Limitation: I find that the importer M/s Yazaki India Private Li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18 and B/E No.9454113 dated 29.12.2018, applicable customs duty had been paid twice i.e., firstly on 29.12.2018 vide ICEGATE reference No.IG291218020933755 2817 for Rs.5,35,010/- and again on 31.12.2018 for Rs.5,35,010/- vide ICEGATE reference No.IG311218021528503791. The documents such as Bill of Entry for which the import duty has been assessed under the Customs statute and the challans/ICEGATE acknowledgements in which the customs duty have been paid twice for the same amount and for the very same Bills of Entry are sufficient evidence that the customs duty has been paid twice for two B/Es. Further, the chartered accountant certificate dated 08.05.2019 produced by the importer-appellants also demonstrates that the burden of duty have been borne by them on being had to pay the customs duty twice, and they had not passed on such burden to any other person. On the above basis, a clear case has been made out by the appellants and the authorities below had verified the facts but denied refund on the sole ground of limitation of time. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the impugned order is contrary to the factual position of the case as discussed herein and on this ground al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons of the said enactments, they will certainly have due regard to the legislative intent evidenced by the provisions of the said Acts and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Act. The writ petition will be considered and disposed of in the light of and in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-B. This is for the reason that the power under Article 226 has to be exercised to effectuate the rule of law and not for abrogating it. 15. In the present case, however, we find that the second deposit of the same amount on clearance of the same goods did not amount to deposit of excise duty and was a pure mistaken deposit of an amount with the Government which the revenue cannot retain or withhold. Such claim, therefore, would not fall within Section 11B of the Act. It is true that insofar as the Act is concerned, for refund of duty, the provision is contained in Section 11B. However, merely because there is no specific statutory provision pertaining to return of amount deposited under a mistake, per se, in our opinion, should not deter us from directing the respondents to return such amount. Admittedly, there is no prohibition under t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld amount to collecting the tax from the petitioner twice. The petitioner having already paid up the service tax even before collection in a particular quarter, cannot be asked to pay such tax all over again in the following quarter on the same service on the ground that such tax had to be deposited in the later quarter but was deposited earlier. Any such action would be without authority of law. Further, before raising demand of Rs. 1,19,465/- under the head of duty short paid, the Assessing Officer should have granted adjustment of the duty already paid by the petitioner towards the same liability. (14) Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the department cannot withhold such amount which the petitioner rightfully claimed. Under the circumstances, question of applying limitation under section 11B of the Act would not arise since we hold that retention of such service tax would be without any authority of law. 18. Before closing, we may record that with some of the observations made by this court in the case of Indo-Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. (supra), with respect, we have serious doubts. However, since such questions do not directly arise in this p....