1985 (5) TMI 181 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the timeline for filing refund claims.
2. Determination of whether subsequent refund applications are considered as a continuation of the original claim or as fresh claims.

Analysis:
The appellant imported spherical bearings and paid duty, later discovering a short landing issue. The clearing agents filed a refund claim, but the goods were seized and released after a redemption fine. Subsequently, a revised claim was filed due to survey shortage. The revenue authorities rejected the claim as time-barred under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, stating the character of the claim had changed from shortlanding to survey shortage. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the rejection, citing the six-month limitation period. The appellant argued the subsequent claim was a continuation of the original claim, emphasizing the undefined term "claim" in the Act.

The appellant's advocate argued that both the original and subsequent refund applications were part of the same claim, citing similarities with Section 78B of the Indian Railways Act, 1890. The advocate contended that the word "claim" should be interpreted broadly, and the Collector (Appeals) erred in considering the subsequent application as a fresh claim. The advocate sought acceptance of the appeal or a remand.

The Departmental Representative maintained that Section 27(1) was mandatory, asserting the subsequent application was time-barred and unrelated to the original claim. Referring to Section 27(4), the Representative supported the Collector (Appeals)'s decision, urging dismissal of the appeal.

After considering the arguments, the Judge determined that the subsequent refund application was a continuation of the original claim filed within the statutory period. The Judge held that the original claim was within time, and the subsequent application clarified and quantified the refund amount. The Judge remanded the case to compute the correct refund amount and directed payment to the appellant within three months.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, emphasizing the continuity of the refund applications and the need for proper computation and payment of the refund amount.