9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Legality of the levy of cess. 3. Relief entitlement of the plaintiff, including the grant of interest. Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the suit under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962: The primary issue was whether the suit was maintainable in light of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The trial court held that the Customs Act is a complete code only if the authorities act within its scope. If the Customs authority acts beyond the scope of the Act, then the order cannot be treated as final, and Section 27 is not applicable when duty is realized unconstitutionally, illegally, or without any authority of law. The trial court concluded that the collection of export duty on cess was patently illegal and beyond the powers conferred on the authorities under the Customs Act, thus the suit was maintainable. 2. Legality of the levy of cess: The second issue was whether the levy of cess was illegal. The trial court determined that the real value of the goods was their invoice price, and the customs authorities had wrongfully included cess in the price of the goods for the purpose of calculating customs duty. This inclusion was beyond their jurisdiction, making the levy of cess illegal. The court noted that the customs authorities had accepted this position by ordering refunds for certain items, indicating that the excess duty charged was without authority of law and therefore without jurisdiction. 3. Relief entitlement of the plaintiff, including the grant of interest: The third issue was the relief to which the plaintiff was entitled. The trial court granted a decree for Rs. 1,05,745.25 along with interim interest and interest on judgment at the rate of 12% per annum, despite there being no claim for interest in the plaint. The court relied on Order VII, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows for general or other reliefs to be granted even if not specifically asked for. Additionally, Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides the court with discretion to grant interim interest and interest on judgment. Appellate Court's Findings: The appellate court, however, disagreed with the trial court's findings. It emphasized that a claim for refund must be made by following the procedure laid down in the Act, and not by filing a suit. The court referenced the Mafatlal Industries Limited case, which clarified that claims for refund must be processed within the framework of the respective enactment. The court also noted that the excess recovery by the Customs Authority, although erroneous, was not without jurisdiction as they had the authority to make the assessment. The appellate court highlighted that Section 27 of the Customs Act requires the assessee to prove that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to another person. For claims made prior to the 1991 Amendment Act, any refundable amount should be credited to the Welfare Fund, not refunded to the assessee. The trial court had overlooked these statutory requirements. The appellate court also pointed out that the majority view in the Mafatlal case barred the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters related to refund claims, emphasizing that such claims must be adjudicated within the provisions of the Customs Act. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the trial court's decree and the subsequent execution order. Conclusion: The appellate court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decree and the execution order, and concluded that the suit was not maintainable under the Customs Act. The court also rejected the prayer for stay made by the respondent.
|
