Back
BHARGAV D. KARIA, NIRAL R. MEHTA
Principal Commissioner, Customs, Ahmedabad Commissionerate – Appellant
Versus
Gail (India) Ltd. – Respondent
ORDER :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. This appeal is filed under section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 [for short ‘the Act’] by the appellant-Revenue proposing the following substantial question of law arising out of the order dated 25.08.2013 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad [for short ‘CESTAT’]in Customs Appeal No. 12326 of 2018:
(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT is right in allowing the appeal of the respondent?
2. The CESTAT has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent which was preferred against the order of rejection of refund claim made by the respondent-assessee as time barred in view of the following facts.
2.1 The respondent-assessee is engaged in import of Liquified Natural Gas [LNG]. The respondent f
The date of service of the final assessment order is the critical date for determining the limitation period for filing refund claims under the Customs Act.
The limitation period for refund claims under the Customs Act is determined from the date of final assessment, not the date of provisional duty payment.
The time limit for filing a refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007 is computed from the date of final assessment, not from the date of payment of duty.
Refund claims arising from provisional assessments are exempt from the principles of unjust enrichment as per established judicial precedents.
Refund claims under provisional assessments prior to the 1999 amendment to Rule 9B of the Central Excise Act do not require the test of unjust enrichment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
