1978 (6) TMI 56 - HC - Customs

Refunds - Protest must be specific - Involuntary payment and payment under protest - Distinction between

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of refund claim under section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on limitation period and protest requirement.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a rubber tire manufacturer, imported Insoluble sulphur under a customs duty exemption notification. Customs authorities wrongly levied duty, leading to a refund claim. The claim was rejected as time-barred by the Assistant Collector, upheld by the Appellate Collector and Joint Secretary. The petitioner contended the duty payments were made under protest, exempting them from the limitation period under Section 27 of the Customs Act.

2. The petitioner argued that continuous objection to duty payments constituted a protest, citing legal precedents. The Supreme Court case of Patel India (Private) Limited v. Union of India & Ors. was referenced to support the contention that unlawful duty realization warrants a refund claim. The petitioner claimed that all duty payments were made under protest due to ongoing legal proceedings, entitling them to refunds for all consignments.

3. The Union of India contended that the refund claim was time-barred as it wasn't made within six months of payment and lacked explicit protest communication. They argued that objection to specific consignments doesn't imply protest for subsequent payments. Each duty payment was considered a separate cause of action, requiring individual protests for refund eligibility under the proviso to Section 27 of the Customs Act.

4. The Court agreed with the Union of India, emphasizing the necessity of explicit protest for duty payments to qualify as made under protest. Involuntary payments due to unjust duty imposition do not automatically constitute protests. The Court ruled that without clear protest communication, the petitioner's duty payments did not meet the protest requirement under Section 27. Consequently, the petitioner's refund claim was dismissed, and the Rule was discharged without costs.