9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit in view of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Legality of the levy of cess. 3. Reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Suit in View of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962: The court examined whether the suit was maintainable given the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, which stipulates a six-month limitation period for refund claims. The plaintiff argued that the excess duty was levied without jurisdiction, making Section 27 inapplicable. The court agreed, stating, "Section 27 is not a bar in filing the suit for refund if the claim of the plaintiff is based on statutory or fundamental rights arising independently of the Customs Act, 1962." The court emphasized that the Customs Act does not authorize the levy of export duty on "cess," and thus, the collection was without jurisdiction and authority of law. Citing precedents like *Patel India (Private) Ltd. v. Union of India*, the court held that the limitation period under Section 27 does not apply to duties levied without jurisdiction. Therefore, the suit was maintainable. 2. Legality of the Levy of Cess: The court scrutinized whether the customs authorities had the jurisdiction to include the cess as part of the assessable value for export duty. The court noted, "The Customs Act does not authorize levy of export duty on 'cess' and, as such, the said collection of export duty on 'cess' is without jurisdiction and authority of law." The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in *Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd.*, which clarified that "the expression 'value' in relation to any excisable goods does not include the amount of the duty of excise, sales tax and other taxes, if any, payable on such goods." Consequently, the court concluded that the levy of export duty on the cess was illegal and beyond the scope of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Reliefs to which the Plaintiff is Entitled: The court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to a refund of the excess duty paid. The judgment stated, "The plaintiff is entitled to the refund of the duty unlawfully collected." Additionally, the court addressed the issue of interest on the refunded amount, citing *Elpro International Ltd. v. Joint Secretary, Government of India*, where the Supreme Court awarded interest at the rate of 12% on wrongly collected duties. The court decreed, "There will be decree for interim interest and interest on judgment at the rate of 12%." Therefore, the plaintiff was awarded a decree for Rs. 1,05,745.25 along with interest at 12% per annum and costs. Conclusion: The court concluded that the suit was maintainable, the levy of cess was illegal, and the plaintiff was entitled to a refund of Rs. 1,05,745.25 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The judgment emphasized that duties collected without jurisdiction or in excess of authority must be refunded, and the limitations under Section 27 of the Customs Act do not apply to such cases.
|
