9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the claim for refund of the quantum of duty alleged to have been collected in excess was barred by limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act. 2. If not barred by limitation, whether the goods in question are assessable under Heading 27.10(i) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and under no other Heading. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act Claims and Proceedings: The appellant imported goods (Cables impregnating non-draining compound) between May 1977 and December 21, 1978. The appellant claimed that despite providing technical data and public notifications supporting the duty assessment under Heading 27.10(i) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the Calcutta Customs levied duty under Heading 38.01(19)(i). The appellant paid the assessed duty without protest and later filed five refund claims aggregating to Rs. 4,40,006.19 through letters dated May 22, 1979, November 22, 1979, and November 26, 1979. These claims were rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs on the grounds of being time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act. Arguments by Appellant: The appellant contended that the claims for refund were not barred by limitation as the collection of excess duty was without jurisdiction, wrongful, and without authority of law. The appellant argued that: - The collection was in excess of jurisdiction and dehors the provisions of the Customs Act and Customs Tariff Act. - The assessment was illegal due to improper examination of the imported goods. - The payment was made under a mistake of law and under duress. - Refund should not be refused on the technical ground of limitation where a legal right to obtain a refund accrued. Tribunal's Analysis: The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's case did not plead a lack of jurisdiction ab initio in the Customs authorities. The Customs authorities had jurisdiction to assess and determine the duty, and such jurisdiction is not lost merely due to a wrong conclusion in law or fact. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's claims were based on erroneous assessment rather than a lack of jurisdiction or ultra vires provisions. The Tribunal highlighted that: - Special forums and procedures for adjudication of rights and liabilities are prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962. - Refund of duty collected on erroneous assessment is specifically provided for with a prescribed period of limitation. - The appellant had availed the provision for refund under Section 27 but contended that the limitation prescribed therein was not applicable. The Tribunal concluded that since the assessment and levy were not without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, mere allegations of want of jurisdiction were devoid of substance. The Tribunal referred to several cases, including A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 638 and A.V. Narasimhalu's case, which supported the position that mere erroneous determination of duty by a competent assessing authority cannot be considered without jurisdiction. Conclusion on Issue 1: The Tribunal upheld the contention of the Revenue that the claims for refund were barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, as they were preferred after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation and the payment was made without protest. Issue 2: Assessability under Heading 27.10(i) of the Customs Tariff Act Tribunal's Decision: Given the conclusion on the first issue, the second question regarding the correct assessable heading for the goods did not arise for consideration. Final Judgment: All four appeals were dismissed as the claims for refund were barred by limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.
|
