1985 (1) TMI 316 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the proceedings as an appeal.
2. Applicability of the period of limitation under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal
The respondents challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the proceedings as an appeal, arguing that no proceedings were pending before the Central Government for transfer. The Tribunal, however, referred to Section 131B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows for the transfer of pending proceedings to the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal held that since the proceedings were pending before the Central Government before the Tribunal's establishment, they were validly transferred to the Tribunal for disposal as an appeal. The preliminary objection challenging the Tribunal's jurisdiction was overruled.

Issue 2: Applicability of Limitation Period
The dispute centered on whether the period of limitation under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, or the general law of limitation should apply. The Appellate Collector extended the time limit based on the Indian Law of Limitation, allowing the appeal for refund of customs duty. However, the Tribunal found this conclusion erroneous and against the statutory provisions. Citing the case of Union of India v. A.V. Narasimhalu, the Tribunal emphasized that parties must adhere to statutory procedures when claiming refunds under the Customs Act. The Tribunal ruled that the general law of limitation does not apply in such cases. Referring to the case of Miles India Limited v. Assistant Collector of Customs, the Tribunal reiterated that Customs authorities must adhere to the limitation period under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the Appellate Collector's decision to extend the limitation period was deemed illegal, and the order was set aside. The Tribunal confirmed the Assistant Collector's order disallowing the refund claim, stating that the appeal was allowed accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld its jurisdiction to hear the appeal and clarified that the limitation period under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, must be adhered to for refund claims, rejecting the application of the general law of limitation in such cases.