HP HC: Adultery Not a Ground to Automatically Disqualify Divorced Wife from Receiving Maintenance  ||  Ker. HC: HRC Being Quasi Judicial Body is Duty Bound to Comply With Principles of Natural Justice  ||  Del. HC: Independent Assessment of Award in Appeal u/s 37 of A&C Act Cannot be Undertaken by Courts  ||  SC: Can’t Entertain Time Barred Contempt Petitions Accepting Bogey of Continuing Wrong  ||  SC: NGT’s Order Allowing Construction of Tiracol Bridge in Goa's Querim Beach, Set Aside  ||  Supreme Court: NIC Officials Directed to Meet NCDRC President to Resolve E-Filing Issues  ||  SC: Customs Duty to be Paid by Owner Even When Confiscated Goods are Redeemed by Paying Fine  ||  Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman Announces Union Budget 2024  ||  Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman Announces Union Budget 2024  ||  Del. HC: CCS Rules Denying Maternity Leave to Women with More than 2 Children, Needs Re- Examination    

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



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 ]


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved