1984 (2) TMI 343 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:

1. Time-barred refund claim
2. General protest applicability
3. Specific protest letter as general protest
4. Objection against classification and special limitation
5. Consideration of objections against classification
6. Requirement of protest for each consignment
7. Benefits of special limitation under general protest
8. Specific protest for future consignments
9. Applicability of Board instructions on limitations
10. Interpretation of Section 27 of the Customs Act

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Time-barred refund claim:

The Tribunal rejected the appeal on the ground that the refund claim dated January 1, 1980, for the imported film laminate cleared on February 22, 1979, was time-barred. The appellant's argument that the payment of duty was made under protest was not accepted as there was no evidence of protest recorded in the bill of entry.

2. General protest applicability:

The appellant contended that the payment of Customs Duty under protest for an imported article due to wrong classification should be deemed a general protest applicable to all subsequent importations of the same article. The Tribunal did not accept this argument, holding that there was no indication of a general protest applicable to all subsequent transactions.

3. Specific protest letter as general protest:

The appellant argued that their letter dated February 21, 1979, addressed to the Member, CBEC, with a copy to the Collector of Customs, Calcutta, constituted a general protest against the classification of Film Laminate as 'Paper.' The Tribunal did not accept this argument, stating that the letter did not constitute a general protest for all subsequent payments of duty.

4. Objection against classification and special limitation:

The appellant claimed that their objection against the classification of film laminate under Entry 48 of ICT-1975 from its inception and the general protest against the levy of customs duty on the film laminate as paper should bring the claim bill dated January 1, 1980, within the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Customs Act for special limitation. The Tribunal did not agree, holding that the claim was time-barred.

5. Consideration of objections against classification:

The appellant argued that the Tribunal should have taken into account the fact that they had raised objections against the classification of film laminate as paper and paid duty under protest. The Tribunal did not consider this argument, maintaining that the claim was time-barred.

6. Requirement of protest for each consignment:

The appellant contended that the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 27 does not require recording of protest for each consignment where there are a series of transactions of the same nature. The Tribunal did not accept this argument, holding that a specific protest was required for each consignment.

7. Benefits of special limitation under general protest:

The appellant argued that the general protest lodged by their letter dated February 21, 1979, against the classification of film laminate as paper should extend the benefits of the special limitation provided under Section 27 of the Act. The Tribunal did not agree, maintaining that the claim was time-barred.

8. Specific protest for future consignments:

The appellant contended that the general protest lodged by their letter dated February 21, 1979, coupled with specific protests in previous bills of entries, made it clear that they were challenging the classification and should not be required to record a specific protest for each future consignment. The Tribunal did not accept this argument, holding that a specific protest was required for each consignment.

9. Applicability of Board instructions on limitations:

The appellant argued that the instructions issued by the Board of Central Excise and Customs regarding limitations, which provide that a general protest for a series of transactions does not require a special protest for each subsequent payment, should apply to Section 27 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal did not accept this argument, maintaining that the claim was time-barred.

10. Interpretation of Section 27 of the Customs Act:

The appellant contended that the Tribunal misread and misconstrued the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Customs Act, which states that the limitation of one year or six months does not apply where duty has been paid under protest. The Tribunal did not accept this argument, holding that the claim was time-barred and that a specific protest was required for each consignment.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that the refund claim was time-barred and that a specific protest was required for each consignment. The appellant's arguments regarding general protest, objections against classification, and the applicability of Board instructions on limitations were not accepted.

← Previous Next →