2007 (1) TMI 372 - AT - Customs

Refund of excess paid light house charges - Jurisdiction - Refund - Excess paid light house charges

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for refund of light house charges filed beyond the stipulated period.
2. Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities to decide the refund application under Section 15 of the Light House Act 1927.

Analysis:
1. The appellant claimed a refund of light house charges paid between August to October 2002 amounting to about Rs. 13 lakhs, citing an exemption for coastal run vessels from 1st October 2001. However, the claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner as it was filed beyond the required period of six months from each payment, as per Section 19 of the Light House Act 1927. The rejection was upheld in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeal challenging that decision.

2. The appellant argued that Customs Authorities lacked the legal competence to decide the refund application, contending that disputes regarding light house dues payable should be determined by a Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate of First Class under Section 15 of the Act. On the other hand, the submission by the SDR was that Customs officers have been designated as the Proper Officer for the collection and recovery of light house dues under Section 13 of the Act. It was argued that since Customs officers have the authority for receipt and recovery, they should also be considered the proper officer for refund of excess payments.

3. The Tribunal agreed with the revenue's interpretation, noting that the Act designates Customs Collectors as the proper officer for the collection, issue of receipt, and recovery of light house dues. Although Section 19, which deals with refund of excess payments, does not explicitly mention the proper officer, the Tribunal held that Customs Collectors should be considered the proper officer for refunds as well. This decision was based on the understanding that refund is incidental to collection and recovery activities, and a different interpretation would create a legal gap. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim as it was filed beyond the stipulated time period, concluding that the authorities acted within their jurisdiction.

4. In the final decision, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that the claim for refund was rightly rejected due to being filed after the specified time limit. The appeal was ordered accordingly, affirming the decision of the Customs Authorities regarding the refund of light house charges.