9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (1) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcess duty of customs. The claims were disallowed as the applications for refund had been made after the expiry of the period of limitation. 2. The appellants felt aggrieved from the order of the Collector and filed a revision petition before the Central Government. The same has been transferred to this Tribunal and we have registered it as an appeal in view of section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Shri Dholakia, learned Counsel for the appellant, has questioned the findings of the officer passing the original order and also of the Collector who decided the first appeal on two grounds. Firstly, he has contended that the Assistant Collector had acted without jurisdiction, and, secondly, the said officer was not competent t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which had accrued to the appellants under the statute, had not been exercised. Evidently, if the payment had been made under protest, the ground of limitation would not have stood in the way as the cases would have been clearly covered by the proviso cited above. 7. According to the decisions of the Assistant Collector and the Collector, the period of limitation had started running from the date of payment of duty in pursuance of the order of assessment made by the officer of the Customs. This date was 13-12-1978 in three cases, 18-12-1978 in the fourth case and 23-12-1978 in the fifth one. As already pointed out, all the five appeals were disposed of by the Collector in a single order dated 31st July, 1980. 8. Five applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms duty. While exercising such powers he had the authority to determine whether or not discount be excluded from the purview of the amount on which The duly was to be levied. It is not a case where the officer concerned had no power ab inifio to take cognisance of the matter. 11. The core of the argument is that the Assistant Collector had only the power to levy customs duty on 20% of the gross value as there was a discount of 80% on the price payable and that levying of duty on the entire amount, i.e. without deducting the discount, was not within his competence, and, therefore, such a decision was without jurisdiction. We are afraid that we cannot subscribe to such a view. Its fallacy is demonstrated by the simple fact that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ress against erroneous exercise of authority. Liability ton pay duty of customs is not a common law liability; it arises by virtue of Sea Customs Act. It was further held that for the remedy of any grievance arising in consequence of enforcement of that liability, machinery has been provided by the Act. Therefore, a civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit. It was, however, further held in the said case that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit does not exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue high prerogative writs against illegal exercise of authority by administrative or quasi-judicial tribunals. 14. The said Supreme Court decision has no application to the facts of the ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt case, and. therefore, does not in any way advance the contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellants. 16. No other case cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants has any relevance to the present case, and, therefore, they need no discussion. 17. Sub-section (1) of section 27 of the Customs Act prescribes a period of limitation during which an application for refund can be made. The meaning and intention of the said provision is clear and unambiguous and, therefore, ordinary, natural and recognised meanings have to be given. The said sub-section fully empowers the Assistant Collector to entertain applications for the refund of duty paid in excess. He has also the authority to dismiss such applications if they ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
