9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of the bar of limitation prescribed in Section 27B of the Customs Act, 1962 for a claim of refund under Section 27 of the Act. - Applicability of the three-year limitation period under the Limitation Act to a claim for refund of countervailing duty. - Distinguishing between cases where jurisdiction of Civil Court is invoked in suits or writ petitions and cases where statutory relief for refund is sought. Analysis: The judgment in question revolves around the interpretation of the bar of limitation as per Section 27B of the Customs Act, 1962 concerning a claim for refund under Section 27 of the Act. The primary issue was whether the claim for refund, made beyond six months from the date of payment of duty, was barred by limitation. The claim was rejected by both the Assistant Collector of Customs and the Appellate Collector based on the provisions of Section 27B. The appellant contended that the claim was not time-barred, especially in the context of countervailing duty, relying on various decisions and constitutional provisions. However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory provisions regarding limitation periods for refund claims. Regarding the applicability of the three-year limitation period under the Limitation Act to a claim for refund of countervailing duty, the appellant argued that the general law of limitation should govern the claim since countervailing duty was not leviable. The appellant cited specific cases and constitutional provisions to support this argument. However, the Tribunal maintained that the statutory provisions of the Customs Act, particularly Section 27B, must be strictly followed in determining the limitation period for refund claims, regardless of the nature of the duty involved. A crucial aspect of the judgment was the distinction drawn between cases where the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is invoked in suits or writ petitions and cases where statutory relief for refund is sought. The Tribunal highlighted that cases involving recovery of duty illegally levied and collected through suits or writ petitions may be subject to different limitation rules compared to claims for refund under statutory provisions. The judgment referenced previous decisions to illustrate this distinction and emphasized the importance of adhering to the specific statutory provisions related to refund claims. Ultimately, based on the reasons outlined in previous decisions, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, underscoring the significance of complying with the statutory limitation period prescribed in Section 27B of the Customs Act.
|
