The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein their refund claim has been rejected by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) as barred by limitation.

2. The facts of the case are as under: -

(i) The appellant filed an application of refund of Rs.3,05,543/ under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 towards refund of Customs Duty foregone on short-receipt of goods in course of importation from SEZ Unit i.e. M/s. Vedant Aluminium Ltd. The said application for refund was sent through courier on 14.01.2015 and the same was also acknowledged by the department i.e. the authorized Officers of Customs, Vedant Ltd. SEZ under letter dated 29.02.2016 whereupon some documents were sought for. In response, under letter dated 29.03.2016, such documents were again sent through speed post addressing the authorized Officers of Customs.

(ii) Thereafter, vide Order-in-Original No. VL/SEZ/01/SO/16-17 dated 15.07.2016, the specified / authorized Officers of Customs, Vedant Ltd. SEZ allowed the claim of refund in favour of the appellant.

(iii) Department carried appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) when vide Order-in-Appeal No. 25/CE/RKL-GS/2018 dated 20.02.2018, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the refund claim was time barred as date of the application could not be confirmed and considering that the refund claim was submitted only on 29.03.2016, set-aside the Order-in-Original dated 15.07.2016 and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant. It is pertinent herein to mention that neither the copy of the appeal was provided to the appellant nor the impugned Order-in-Appeal was passed granting opportunity of hearing to the appellant and from records, it would be evident that the decision was exparte whereupon, only vide letter dated 18.08.2018, the purported original copy of Order-in-Appeal was forwarded to the appellant.

2.1. The appellant is in appeal challenging the said Order-in-Appeal dated 20.02.2018.

3. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has made the following submissions: -

(i) It is not a dispute that there had been Customs duty foregone on the short-receipt of goods from the SEZ Unit and that in respect of the Bills of Entry No. 14 & 15 dated 27.03.2014 & 24.04.2014, the appellant became entitled for the refund of excess duty so paid due to short- receipt of goods. The original authority in his Order-in-Original had duly considered and examined all the aspects and sanctioning the refund, recording that the application was submitted on 14.01.2015. It is not only the recording of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority, but also a fact on-record as is evident from the communication dated 29.02.2016, which confirms that the appellant’s application was submitted on 14.01.2015.

(ii) The sole ground for denial of the refund as has been held by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is based on the fact that the refund claim did not carry any date. Evidently, through courier receipt appearing at page 7 of the appeal, it would be evident that the appellant sent a consignment on 14.01.2015 addressing Vedant Aluminium SEZ and it is not a mere co-incidence that the authorized Officer of Customs has referred to such date under his letter dated 29.02.2016 and therefore, date of submission of the refund claim is to be construed as 14.01.2015, which has been rightly indicated by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority and therefore, the finding of the Appellate Authority on such aspect is bad in law.

(iii) Further, the Appellate Authority also refers to Customs Refund Application (Form) Regulations, 1995 and held that the refund application was filed complete in all respect on 29.03.2016, which is also erroneous. It is submitted that in terms of Regulation 2(3) of the Regulations of 1995 provides that in the eventuality a refund application is found to be incomplete, the proper officer, shall within 10 working days of it receipts, return the application to the applicant by pointing out deficiencies and the applica