Case Details: IFGL Refractories Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Tax, Guntur (2025) 31 Centax 234 (Tri.-Hyd)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Shri A.K. Jyotishi, Member (T)
- Shri Ayush Jain, Adv., for the Appellant.
- Shri V.R. Pavan Kumar, AR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The Appellant, having effected import of goods, initially discharged the applicable customs duty. Under a mistaken impression that the earlier payment had not been credited, the Appellant again remitted the same duty amount along with differential interest for the identical consignment. A refund claim was thereafter filed before the jurisdictional customs authority, contending that the second payment constituted an excess remittance and retained the character of customs duty.
The Appellant submitted that such erroneous double payment was covered under the scope of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore refundable. The jurisdictional officer under CGST, however, rejected the claim on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period under the said provision. The Appellant argued that since the payment was made under a bona fide error and without any element of suppression, the bar of limitation ought not to apply. The matter was accordingly placed before the CESTAT Hyderabad.
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that the amount paid twice on the same goods by mistake was in the nature of duty and that a refund of such excess payment is, in principle, allowable under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, since the claim was filed before the customs authority—who is bound strictly by the provisions of the statute—the limitation prescribed under Section 27 had to be applied mandatorily. It was held that the refund claim, having been filed beyond the statutory time limit, was not admissible. The appeal was accordingly decided in favour of the Revenue.
