TMI Blog1982 (12) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it appears from the grounds of appeal that the appellant Company had imported goods described as Opthalmic Rough Blanks and the same were assessed to, inter alia, countervailing duty by invoking tariff item 23-A(4) of the Central Excise Tariff (hereinafter referred to as CET). It is not made specifically clear in the grounds of revision as to on what date the impugned duty was paid, but it appears from the original order of the Asstt. Collector of Customs, Refund Department, Bombay which is dated 17-4-1980, that the duty had been paid on 18/19-4-1979, whereas the claim for refund was received in the concerned office on 15-4-1980, i.e. approximately after a year of the payment. This application was rejected straightaway by virtue of the ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellant with reference to the contentions set forth in the appeal and have applied our careful thought to the matter, and we are of our considered view that the grounds set up by the appellant, seeking reversal of the orders of the customs authorities, are not tenable. 6. It is to be noted that the Customs Act is a complete statute by itself and an application for refund having been made u/s 27 of the said Act, the provisions of that Act would govern such matters in their entirety, unless the legislation intended otherwise. 7. The only exception recognised by law is, that the application for refund could be entertained even after the expiry of period of six months, in case the amount had been paid under protest or provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the Act may not be entitled to direct refund...... . 9. This makes it abundantly clear that even in this case on which the appellant places reliance, the view was expressed that so far as authorities by Special Act are concerned, they are bound by the time-limit provided therein and the general law of limitation of three years could be invoked if a suit was filed by reference to Section 72 of the Contract Act, before the Civil Court or High Court while exercising writ jurisdiction may apply principles thereof, and direct refund on the basis that State could not be allowed undue enrichment at the cost of a party. 10. There is an authority of the Supreme Court, reported as AIR 1976 SC page 638 with direct reference to Section 27( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
