Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 1988 (12) TMI AT This
Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. - Interpretation of the limitation period for filing refund claims. - Applicability of judgments by different benches and the Supreme Court on the issue of refund claims. Analysis: The case involved an appeal by M/s. Jay Shree Tea & Industries Ltd. against the rejection of their refund claim by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta, under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, as being time-barred. The appellant contended that they had applied for the refund based on information received from the Assistant Collector of Customs, and they were entitled to the refund amount. The appellant relied on a judgment by the Western Regional Bench, Bombay, which held that if the department informed the applicants about the excess amount collected and asked for a refund application, the limitation under Section 27 would not apply. The appellant argued that since the duty was paid under protest, the claim should not be considered time-barred. The appellant sought allowance of the appeal based on this argument. The respondent, represented by a learned JDR, opposed the acceptance of the appeal, arguing that the refund claim was indeed time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, as it was filed after the expiry of six months. The respondent highlighted that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Miles India Limited was not cited before the Western Regional Bench, and therefore, the appeal should be rejected. After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the facts of the case, the Tribunal noted that the Assistant Collector had indeed intimated the appellants to make a refund claim based on the excess levy amount. However, the Tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, as highlighted by the Supreme Court in the case of Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills. The Tribunal disagreed with the judgment of the Western Regional Bench, Bombay, cited by the appellant's advocate, and held that the refund claim was time-barred under Section 27. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the mandatory provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding the limitation period for refund claims.
|