2026 (7) TMI 386

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s rejected by Commissioner (Appeal). 2. Brief facts of the case is that the appellant had filed refund claim before the concerned Refund Sanctioning Authority (RSA) on the grounds that they had paid applicable customs duty on import twice in respect of Bill of Entry No.714344 dated 09.12.2010. RSA examined the documents and the grounds and held that since the duty was paid on 10.12.2010 and the claim for refund was made on 11.07.2012, which is beyond one year, therefore, the claim is clearly time barred. Thereafter, the claim was rejected on the sole ground of time bar without getting into other aspects of the claim. 3. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeal) observed that when the payment of double duty itself cannot be verified or conf....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the findings of the Commissioner (Appeal) and points out that Commissioner (Appeal) has rightly held that in the event of doubt about the payment of duty itself, issue of limitation is of no significance or consequence. 6. Heard both sides. I find that the core issue, that has to be decided in this appeal, is whether the refund application was filed on 02.06.2011 or on 25.05.2012. In this case the RSA has not commented anything about the refund application dated 02.06.2011, which is clearly within the time limit. I also find merit in submission of Ld. Advocate that on the strength of the same application, they were already granted refund of SAD which would support the view that application was received by the Department. This aspect of d....