9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the appellants are entitled to a refund of the duty amount collected. 2. Interpretation of the Supreme Court orders dated Nov. 17, 1976, and Dec. 10, 1979, regarding the refund application. 3. Examination of the limitation under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, in granting the refund. Analysis: The judgment involves five appeals questioning the refund of duty totaling &8377; 1,70,597.44, based on the Supreme Court's orders in Civil Appeal Nos. 784-787 and 866 of 1973. The appellants imported 'Earth Moving Equipment' during 1964-1965, which were assessed for additional duty as Motor Vehicles. However, a subsequent Public Notice declared these goods not liable for Excise duty, leading to refund applications rejected due to exceeding the time limit under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The matter escalated to the Supreme Court, which granted leave to withdraw appeals with liberty to approach the Central Government in Revision. The Government rejected the Revision Applications as time-barred, prompting the Supreme Court to remand the matter for consideration on merits, not limited by time constraints. During the hearing, the Departmental Representative conceded that the imported goods were not chargeable to countervailing duty, raising the question of whether the refund could be granted despite the time limitation under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act. The appellants argued that the Supreme Court's orders prevented the Department from relying on the limitation defense, while the Department contended that the merits should include the limitation aspect. The dispute centered on the interpretation of the Supreme Court's directions and the scope of 'merits' in the context of the claim for refund. The Tribunal analyzed the statements made on behalf of the Union of India before the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the Government agreed to consider the appellants' claim on merits, potentially overlooking the statutory limitations. The Tribunal referred to precedents where examination on merits did not encompass limitation issues, concluding that the Government's statement implied a waiver of limitations under Section 131 and Section 27(1) of the Act. The Tribunal rejected the argument that it lacked the authority to relax limitations, emphasizing the Government's commitment to examine the claim on merits. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to a refund of the duty amount collected, given the Government's agreement to waive limitations and the non-disputed fact that the goods were not liable for countervailing duty. The Tribunal ordered the refund within three months, allowing the appeals in favor of the appellants.
|
