SC: ‘Abandonment of Service is Not Voluntary Retirement’, Denying SBI Clerk Pension Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Stranger Affected by an Interim Order is Entitled to be Impleaded in Writ Proceedings  ||  Supreme Court: Courts Cannot Replace an Authority’s Discretion, and Sets Aside Direction to Governor  ||  SC: Title Suit Hit by Constructive Res Judicata if Omitted in Prior Injunction Suit Disputing Title  ||  SC Clarifies Whether a Co-Operative Society Can Act as a Resolution Applicant under the IBC  ||  Chhattisgarh High Court: Innocent Litigants Should Not be Penalized For Lapses by Their Lawyers  ||  Delhi High Court: Marriage With the Victim Cannot Absolve an Accused of Rape under POCSO  ||  J&K&L HC: Acquisition Lapses if 80% Compensation is Unpaid Before Possession under Section 17A  ||  Delhi HC: Policy Number is Not Mandatory For LIC Details under RTI, But Basic Details are Required  ||  SC: Courts Must Curb Unlicensed Money Lenders; Probes Need Not Wait For New Law    

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