1987 (9) TMI 287 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under customs duty, eligibility for refund, application of relevant legal provisions

Classification of Imported Goods:
The appellants imported Water Pump Bearings and sought a refund of part of the customs duty, claiming the goods should be classified under Heading 84.63 or 84.10(3) instead of the initially assessed Heading No. 84.62(2). The Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector upheld the classification under Heading 84.62(2) for basic customs duty. The appellants argued for classification under 84.63(1) as power transmission parts or alternatively under Heading 84.10(3). They contended that all machinery parts serving the purpose of power transmission fall under Heading 84.63. The Tribunal referred to a previous order where Water Pump Spindle Bearings were classified under Heading 84.62(1) and directed the same classification for the imported goods.

Eligibility for Refund:
The appellants sought a higher refund amount than originally applied for, based on the classification under Heading 84.62(1) as directed by the Tribunal in a previous order. The respondent argued that the Tribunal cannot grant a refund higher than the amount applied for, citing the Miles India judgment. The appellants disagreed, citing Section 27(3) of the Customs Act to support their claim. The Tribunal held that the Miles India judgment applies, emphasizing that a refund cannot be granted without a proper application within six months from the payment date. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that the appellants should receive a refund limited to the amount claimed by them.

Application of Legal Provisions:
The Tribunal clarified that Section 27(3) of the Customs Act and the judgment in Premier Tiles are not applicable in this case. Instead, the judgment in Miles India, as per the Supreme Court, is relevant, stating that a refund cannot be granted without a formal application within the specified timeframe. The Tribunal emphasized that any consequential relief granted should be restricted to the amount of the refund claimed by the appellants, in accordance with the legal principles established in the Miles India case.