Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 1984 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1984 (11) TMI 213 - AT - Customs

Issues:
- Rejection of refund claims for auxiliary duty paid under Customs Act, 1962.
- Applicability of Section 27 of the Act regarding limitation for refund claims.
- Interpretation of protest in the context of duty payment.
- Comparison with previous judgments on similar matters.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns the rejection of refund claims for auxiliary duty paid under the Customs Act, 1962. The Assistant Collector rejected the claims as time-barred under Section 27 of the Act due to late submission of applications beyond the stipulated period. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellants argued that the duty paid was exempted under specific notifications and was paid under protest during goods clearance, thus exempting them from the limitation period under Section 27. They contended that the Assistant Collector lacked authority to collect the duty, making the refund claim valid. The appellants highlighted entries in the bills of entry indicating exemption from duty and cited the absence of a formal protest process in the Customs Act.

During the hearing, the appellants referenced previous judgments to support their argument. They cited the Union Carbide India Limited case, where it was held that Section 27 would not apply in similar situations. Additionally, they referred to the minority view in the Laboratories Vifor case, emphasizing that collection without authority might not fall under Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

In contrast, the Senior Departmental Representative emphasized the established procedure for lodging a protest and noted the absence of a formal protest in the present case. He pointed out discrepancies in the bill of entry entries, indicating that auxiliary duty was not explicitly exempted. Referring to previous decisions, he highlighted the obligation to adhere to Section 27 for duty collections under the Customs Act.

The Tribunal scrutinized the bill of entry entries and concluded that no formal protest had been made before or during filing. They noted that the telex referred to by the appellants pertained to countervailing duty, not auxiliary duty. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' argument, stating that the lack of a formal protest rendered their claim invalid under Section 27.

In the final analysis, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the rejection of the refund claims as time-barred. They clarified that the duty payment, not being a result of jurisdictional error, fell within the purview of Section 27, making the limitation period applicable. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and established norms in duty payment and refund claims under the Customs Act.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates