Supreme Court Urged Railways to Drop the Term Second-Class Passengers  ||  Supreme Court: Employers Cannot Deny Compassionate Appointments Through Delays  ||  Supreme Court Explains How Testimony of a Dead Witness Can be Used Against an Absconding Accused  ||  SC Recommended Amending IBC to Ensure Fair Repayment Protection for MSME Operational Creditors  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Cannot Reappreciate Evidence in Certiorari Jurisdiction  ||  SC: Railways are Not Liable Unless Owner-Risk Goods Were Counted or Weighed  ||  SC: Courts and Prosecutors Must Expedite Trials For Jailed Accused  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies that Swear Words and Vulgar Expletives Alone do Not Constitute Obscenity  ||  Supreme Court: Nominated Town Panchayat Members Have No Voting Rights in Council Polls  ||  Delhi High Court Declines Interim Relief to Sonam Wangchuk, Upholds His Hospitalization    

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