SC: Subsidy Taxability Depends on its Purpose under The Income Tax Law  ||  MP HC:Revenue Authority’s Decision Can’t Operate as Res Judicata in Absence of Express Statutory Bar  ||  SC: Breakup Followed by Suicide does not Automatically Amount to Abetment to Suicide  ||  SC: Election Petition under Representation of the People Act Must be Filed Personally by Petitioner  ||  Patna HC: Template Arrest Memo cannot Satisfy Mandate under Article 22 of Constitution  ||  MP HC: Delayed Cruelty FIR not Counterblast When Wife “Remains Silent” to Save her Married Life  ||  MP HC:Revenue Authority’s Decision Can’t Operate as Res Judicata in Absence of Express Statutory Bar  ||  Patna HC: Signature Mismatch alone cannot Prove OMR Tampering  ||  J&K&L HC: Bail can be Set Aside if Contrary to Statutory Mandate  ||  Kerala HC: Headmistress’s Churidar cannot Bar Entry, Clothing Choice is A Fundamental Right    

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