The High Court of Madras,quashed the appeal order and held that a fresh refund claim under Section 27(1-B) of the CustomsAct,1962,was not required as the petitioner had filed the original claims within the prescribed time.

G.E.India Industrial Pvt. Ltd.,petitioner-assessee,developed a wind energy park and imported wind turbine components through Tuticorin Port between March 2011 and November 2011. The petitioner filed 11 refund claims for 16 bills of entry with Chennai Customs, all within the prescribed time.

The Deputy Commissioner of Customs initially rejected the claims on 17.09.2013. The petitioner’s appeal before the Appellate Commissioner was also rejected on 24.07.2014. The petitioner then approached the CESTAT, which remanded the matter to the Tuticorin Customs House in December 2018, directing them to process the refund claims as the claims were timely filed and rejection on jurisdiction grounds would be unfair.

Following the remand, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the refund on 16.11.2021 and sanctioned Rs.7,00,21,132 as Special Additional Duty (SAD) under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The department reviewed the order on 19.12.2021, leading to an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner on 28.06.2023.

In the impugned order, the petitioner was criticized for not filing a fresh claim, citing Section 27(1-B)(b) on the one-year limitation from the date of any judgment or order. The Appellate Commissioner did not examine the merits of the claims, and the respondent argued that an alternate remedy existed under Section 128 of the Customs Act

Relief to ITI Ltd: Gauhati HC Orders to Reconsider GST ITC and Related Demands as per Amended S. 16

Justice C.Saravanan considered the arguments of both parties. The petitioner had filed refund claims on time, which were initially rejected by the original authority and the first appellate authority. The CESTAT intervened and remanded the case in December 2018, after which the original authority allowed the refund on 17.09.2013.

The Court noted that Section 27(1-B)(b) would apply only where the refund of duty arises as a consequence of a judgment, decree, order, or direction of the appellate authority, Appellate Tribunal, or any court.

In this case, the refund claim fell under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, which required the petitioner to file the refund claim within one year from the date of payment of duty, subject to compliance with Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007.

There was no dispute that the petitioner had borne the customs duty and was eligible for the refund. The Court held that the argument requiring a fresh refund claim under Section 27(1-B) was not applicable, as it only applied when the refund arose due to an order of the authorities mentioned therein.

The writ petition was allowed, the impugned appeal order dated 28.06.2023 was quashed, no costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates