1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court were:
- Whether the Central Government, while issuing notifications and circulars under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, can impose conditions that derogate from or curtail the statutory time limits for refund claims prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act.
- Whether the limitation period for filing refund claims of additional duty of customs (CVD) in cases of provisional assessment should be computed from the date of provisional payment of duty or from the date of final assessment.
- The validity and applicability of Circular No. 23/2010-Customs dated 29.7.2010 and Notification No. 93/2008-Customs dated 1.8.2008, particularly regarding the time limit for refund claims and the exclusion of Section 27 of the Act by the circular.
- Whether the refund claims filed by the petitioner beyond one year from the provisional payment but within the limitation period prescribed under Section 27 from the final assessment date are barred by limitation.
- The effect of delayed final adjudication orders on the limitation period for refund claims.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Power of the Central Government under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act to impose conditions affecting refund claim periods
Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 25(1) empowers the Central Government to grant exemption from customs duty either absolutely or subject to conditions. However, such exemption notifications cannot impose harsher or more rigorous terms than those prescribed under the statute. The exemption must be indulgent or benevolent in nature.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that while the Government can grant exemptions and impose conditions, it cannot curtail or reduce statutory time limits for filing refund claims prescribed under Section 27. The notification under Section 25(1) cannot impose more deleterious terms than the statute. The Court emphasized that a notification can extend or liberalize the statute but cannot restrict or impose harsher conditions.
Application of law to facts: The impugned Notification No. 93/2008-Customs and Circular No. 23/2010-Customs, which sought to restrict the refund claim period to one year from the date of provisional payment of duty, were held to be ultra vires to the extent they exclude or curtail the applicability of Section 27.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents argued that since the notification was issued under Section 25(1), the prescribed conditions, including the time limit for refund claims, must be followed and Section 27 would not apply. The Court rejected this, holding that Section 27 applies to all refund claims and cannot be overridden by notification conditions.
Conclusion: The Central Government cannot, by notification or circular, reduce or curtail the statutory limitation period for refund claims under Section 27 of the Customs Act.
Issue 2: Computation of limitation period for refund claims in cases of provisional assessment under Section 18 and Section 27 of the Customs Act
Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 18 allows provisional assessment of duty, with final assessment to follow. Section 27(1) prescribes limitation periods for refund claims, with Explanation II stating that where duty is paid provisionally under Section 18, the limitation period shall be computed from the date of adjustment of duty after final assessment.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that the "date of payment" for limitation purposes in cases of provisional assessment must be read with Explanation II to Section 27, i.e., from the date of final adjustment, not the provisional payment date. This is logical because the duty amount is uncertain until final adjudication, and refund quantum depends on final assessment. The Court found the Circular No. 23/2010-Customs' stipulation that limitation runs from provisional payment date to be flawed and contrary to the statute.
Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's refund claims were filed beyond one year from provisional payment but within six months or one year from final assessment. The final assessments were delayed without explanation, adversely affecting the petitioner's ability to file timely refund claims under the circular's interpretation.
Application of law to facts: The Court held that the limitation period for refund claims in provisional assessment cases should be the longer of the two periods: either the statutory period under Section 27 from final assessment or the one-year period from provisional payment as per the notification and circular. This harmonizes the provisions and avoids unjust curtailment of rights due to delayed final assessment.
Treatment of competing arguments: Respondents contended that the circular's interpretation was binding and the limitation started from provisional payment. The Court rejected this, emphasizing statutory primacy and the purpose of Explanation II to Section 27.
Conclusion: Refund claims in provisional assessment cases must be allowed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 27 computed from final assessment or within one year from provisional payment, whichever is longer.
Issue 3: Applicability and validity of Circular No. 23/2010-Customs and Notification No. 93/2008-Customs concerning refund claims and limitation
Relevant legal framework and precedents: Notification No. 102/2007-Customs (14.09.2007) exempted certain goods from additional duty subject to conditions, including refund claims. Notification No. 93/2008 amended the refund claim condition to impose a one-year time limit from date of payment. Circular No. 6/2008 clarified time limits and procedural aspects. Circular No. 23/2010 clarified that limitation under Section 27 does not apply to refund claims under these notifications and circulars, and that limitation runs from provisional payment date.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found Circular No. 23/2010's exclusion of Section 27 to be incorrect and ultra vires. It held that Section 27 applies to all refund claims, including those under exemption notifications. The Court also noted that the circular's interpretation results in unfairness, especially where final assessment is delayed, effectively barring legitimate refund claims.
Application of law to facts: The petitioner's refund claims were rejected relying on Circular No. 23/2010 and Notification No. 93/2008 on the ground of limitation. The Court set aside these orders, holding that the circular's exclusion of Section 27 is invalid.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents argued that the circular and notification were valid exercises of power under Section 25 and conditions therein were binding. The Court disagreed, emphasizing statutory supremacy and the protective purpose of Section 27.
Conclusion: Circular No. 23/2010 is quashed to the extent it excludes Section 27. Notification No. 93/2008's time limit must be read harmoniously with Section 27 and Explanation II.
Issue 4: Effect of delayed final assessment on limitation for refund claims
Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 18 mandates final assessment following provisional assessment. Explanation II to Section 27 requires limitation to be computed from final assessment date in provisional cases.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that delayed final adjudication orders caused hardship to the petitioner, who filed refund claims within the statutory limitation period from final assessment but beyond one year from provisional payment. The circular's rigid limitation from provisional payment unfairly penalizes importers due to administrative delays.
Application of law to facts: The petitioner's claims related to imports between December 2008 and October 2009 were finally assessed only in July 2010, causing claims to be rejected as time-barred under the circular's interpretation. The Court found no justification for such penalization and held that limitation should run from final assessment to protect the importer's rights.
Conclusion: Administrative delay in final assessment cannot cut short the limitation period for refund claims. The limitation period must be computed from the final assessment date in provisional assessment cases.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
"The Central Government cannot, by notification or circular, impose conditions which curtail or reduce the statutory time limits for refund claims prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962."
"The limitation period for refund claims in cases where duty is paid provisionally under Section 18 has to be computed from the date of adjustment of duty after final assessment, as per Explanation II to Section 27, and not from the date of provisional payment."
"Circular No. 23/2010-Customs dated 29.07.2010, insofar as it excludes the applicability of Section 27 of the Customs Act to refund claims under Notification No. 93/2008-Customs, is ultra vires and liable to be quashed."
"Where goods are released on provisional assessment followed by final assessment, the refund claim can be filed within the longer of the two periods: either the limitation period under Section 27 computed from final assessment or the extended period of one year from provisional payment as prescribed by the notification and circular."
"Administrative delays in passing final assessment orders cannot prejudice the right of the importer to file refund claims within the statutory limitation period."
"The impugned orders rejecting the petitioner's refund claims on the ground of limitation, relying on Circular No. 23/2010-Customs, are set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with the Court's interpretation of the law."
9911796707
Advanced Search 
