9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 489X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Customs to return to the petitioner the duplicate payment of Rs. 6,33,144/- made by the petitioner under Ext.P2. 2. The petitioner was Agent of the vessel M. V. Cape Chronos. The vessel was to call at Cochin Port Trust on 09.05.2016. The vessel was expected to arrive in the evening. In the morning, the petitioner remitted Light Dues amounting to Rs. 6,33,144/- through the web portal of the Director General of Lighthouses and Lightships (DGLL). However, the receipt was not generated by the web portal. The petitioner was under the impression that the online payment had not gone through. The vessel was to arrive in the evening and in the absence of proof of payment of Light Dues, the petitioner would have f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t.P5 order. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), by Ext.P9 order, dismissed the appeal filed under the Customs Act, 1962 holding that the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation. 5. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the dual payment made by the petitioner cannot be treated as excess payment as contemplated under Section 9 of the Lighthouse Act, 1927. Therefore, statutory limitation for claiming excess payment would not be applicable to the case. The petitioner was ill-advised to resort to an inappropriate statutory remedy by the Customs authorities. According to the petitioner, the payment made by them as per Ext.P1 was not excess payment. The claim of the petitioner is for reimbursement of "Amount paid twice". Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K.R. Rajkumar, Central Government Counsel appearing for the additional 3rd respondent. 9. There is no dispute that the amount payable by the petitioner towards Light Dues in respect of the vessel MV Cape Chronos arrived at the Cochin Port Trust on 09.05.2016, is Rs. 6,33,144/-. It is also not disputed that the petitioner has made two payments towards the same Light Dues on 09.05.2016. However, the application filed by the petitioner for refund was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, on the ground of limitation. The appeal was also rejected on the same ground. The question to be considered is whether the delay will spoil the right of the petitioner for refund of dual payment/duplicate payment. 10. Section 19 of the Lighthous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sub-section (2) of Section 12 provides for method of ascertaining the tonnage of any ship for the purpose of levying Light Dues. Section 19 provides that where Light Dues have been paid in excess of the amount payable under this Act, no claim for refund of such excess payment shall be admissible unless it is made within six months. 14. It is therefore evident that Light Dues are directly related to tonnage of the ship/vessel and excess payment can occur when payment of Light Dues is made disproportionately disregarding the tonnage of the ship. Shipping companies and shipping agents are expected to measure the tonnage of the ship/vessel correctly and pay Light Dues with due regard to notified rates. Excess payment of Light Dues may occur i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Constitution and the assessee claimed refund of the amount on discovery of the mistake. The assessee had not raised the question of non liability at the time the assessment was completed and the mistake was on the part of both the assessee and the assessing authority. Subsequently, the assessee discovered the mistake, and made the claim for refund which was allowed by this Court in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court observed that such payment was within the scope of Section 72 of the Contract Act and the claim for refund was to be entertained if it was made within three years from the date on which the mistake became known to the assessee who made payment by mistake. The Court went on to observe tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the excess payment, he was entitled to refund of the amount collected illegally. 18. In Mahabir Kishore v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1990 SC 315], the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the starting point of the period of limitation of three years for a proceeding of this nature. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that when money is paid under a mistake of law, the period of limitation for recovery of the amount does not begin to run until the date on which the plaintiff discovers the mistake or could with reasonable diligence have discovered the mistake. Article 113 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 and the provisions of section 17(1)(c) of that Act apply in such cases. 19. The dual payment made by the petitioner in this writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
