Limitation period for granting refund not applicable to refund of Custom duty paid in excess


Quick Summary
The Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that the usual time limit for claiming refunds does not apply when customs duty has been paid in excess. This decision was made in a case where a company claimed a refund of service tax paid on ocean freight, which was later deemed unconstitutional by the Gujarat High Court. CESTAT clarified that tax paid under a mistake of law, due to an unconstitutional levy, should be refunded without the restriction of Section 27 of the Customs Act.

Court :
CESTAT, Bangalore

Brief :
The Hon'ble Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore ("CESTAT") in the matter of M/s FCI OEN Connectors v. Commissioner Of Central Tax & Central Excise, Cochin [Final Order No.20795/2021 dated October 21, 2021] held that when the customs duty is paid in excess, the department is liable to refund the same and the limitation provided under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 ("the Customs Act") will not be applicable.

Citation :
Final Order No.20795/2021 dated October 21, 2021

The Hon'ble Customs, Excise & Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore ("CESTAT") in the matter of M/s FCI OEN Connectors v. Commissioner Of Central Tax & Central Excise, Cochin [Final Order No.20795/2021 dated October 21, 2021] held that when the customs duty is paid in excess, the department is liable to refund the same and the limitation provided under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 ("the Customs Act") will not be applicable.

M/s FCI OEN Connectors ("the Appellant") filed the current appeal being aggrieved of the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Kochi, whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the rejection of refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ("the Central Excise Act"). Factually, It is the case of the Appellant that they have filed a refund claim of Rs.14,88,888/- being the Service tax paid on ocean freight for the period April 2017 to June 2017 but High Court of Gujarat in the case of SAL Steel Ltd. v. UOI [2019 (9) TMI 1315-Gujarat HC dated September 06, 2019] has clearly held that the levy in question was ulta vires Section 64, Section 66B and Section 65B(52) of the Finance Act, 1994 ("the Finance Act") which decision was followed by the Gujarat High Court again in the case of Polycab India Limited Vs UOI [2020 (2) EMI 410- Gujarat HC dated January 30, 202]0 wherein, the High Court had held that the levy of service tax on ocean freight is unconstitutional.

The Hon'ble CESTAT after considering the rival contentions and after going through all the various decisions relied upon during the course of arguments clarified that it is a case where the Service tax has been held to be unconstitutional hence, the tax which is paid would amount to the one paid under mistake of law.

Further, the CESTAT relied upon the case M/s DHL Express India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax [2021-TIOL-1830-HC-KAR-CUS dated October 12, 2017] and held that when the customs duty is paid in excess, the department is liable to refund the same and the limitation provided under Section 27 of the Customs Act will not be applicable. Therefore, held that the lower authority has erred in law and fact, solely relying on Section 27 of the Customs Act while dismissing the application of the Appellant.
Hence, CESTAT do not find any justification in the reasons adopted for rejection of the refund claim by the lower authorities.

Therefore, set aside the Order-in-Appeal and allowed the appeal.

FAQ :

The CESTAT ruled that the limitation period under Section 27 of the Customs Act does not apply to refunds of excess customs duty paid.

The refund was claimed for service tax paid on ocean freight, which was later found to be an unconstitutional levy.

The CESTAT held that the excess payment was made under a mistake of law due to an unconstitutional levy, making the standard time limit inapplicable.

Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, typically governs the limitation period for refund claims.

The CESTAT set aside the Order-in-Appeal and allowed the appellant's appeal, overturning the rejection of their refund claim.

 

Bimal Jain
Published in Custom
Views : 589

Comments




CCI Pro



Company
ARTICLESHIP 15 July 2026
CA Articles

Kinjal H Shah & Co.

Mumbai

CA Foundation

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 17 July 2026
Article Assistant and B.com pass

BANSAL YOGESH AND CO

Gautam Budh Nagar

B.Com

View Details
Company
13 July 2026
AVP / VP - PCG Advisory

Workforce Connect

Mumbai

MBA

View Details
Company
23 July 2026
CA Inter

Vikram Jadhav and Company

Pune

CA Inter

View Details
Company
21 July 2026
Chartered Accountant

Keshri & Associates

Thiruvananthapuram

CA

View Details
Company
ARTICLESHIP 28 July 2026
Article/Intern/Semi-Qualified/Fresher B.Com

VNSS & Co

Mumbai

Others

View Details
Company
23 July 2026
Semi qualified CA

Garg Bros & Associate CA

New Delhi

CA Inter

View Details
Company
11 July 2026
CA semi qualified

Vakilsearch.com

Chennai

CA Inter

View Details
Follow