SC: CIRP Need Not Be Set Aside Solely for Fraudulent Filing of Section 9 Plea  ||  Supreme Court: Compromise Decree Passed Without Impleading Necessary Party is Void  ||  SC: Cheque Dishonour Notice Valid if Sent to Drawer’s Address and Received by Family  ||  J&K&L HC: Minority During Attestation Cannot Justify Decades-Long Delay in Challenging Mutation  ||  Bombay HC: WhatsApp Circulation of Objectionable Photos Can Attract SC/ST Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Cardiac Arrest From Stress of Long-Distance Driving is Compensable  ||  Delhi HC: Accused Cannot Delay Trial and Then Rely on Delay to Seek Bail  ||  Calcutta HC: Insurer Must Compensate Child’s Accidental Death Despite Driver’s Fake Licence  ||  Bombay HC Tells X to Take Down Defamatory Post Targeting Serum Institute, CEO Adar Poonawalla  ||  Delhi High Court Restores Arbitral Award in DMRC’s Favour Passed by Employee-Arbitrator    

Prince Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (23 Sep 2016)

Refund application beyond period specified could not be entertained unless refund was a consequence of declaration of provision as unconstitutional

MANU/CB/0130/2016

Customs

Appellant had imported Heavy Melting Steel Scrap. Appellant committed inadvertent mistake and paid excess amount in respect of Bills of Entry. Present appeal is against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting refund claim of the appellant being barred by time by upholding the Order-in-Original.

Appellant submitted that the excess amount has been paid due to clerical mistake and the same cannot be termed as duty and therefore the limitation period of six months provided under Section 27(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not applicable.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and also in the case of Sarita Handa Exports has held that any refund application beyond period specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act could not be entertained unless the refund was a consequence of declaration of a provision as unconstitutional. Therefore relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held that, there is nothing wrong in the impugned order and the refund claim filed by Appellant is time-barred.

Relevant : Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Sarita Handa Exports (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India [MANU/PH/4882/2010 ]Mafatlal Industries Ltd. and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. [MANU/SC/1203/1997 ]

Tags : REFUND   TIME BARRED   GRANT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved