18 May 2020


Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

Prince Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin




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.


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 :