9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issue involved in this case is whether the appellant's claim for refund of excess import duty, based on a notification reducing the duty rate, is time-barred under Sec. 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Comprehensive details of the judgment for each issue involved: 1. The appellant, a manufacturer of hospital equipment, imported stainless steel sheets under a license for actual use. Subsequently, it discovered that the imported stainless steel qualified for a lower duty rate under a customs notification. The appellant filed a refund claim after the expiry of the six-month time limit prescribed by Sec. 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The claim was rejected by the authorities on the grounds of being time-barred and not filed under protest. 2. The appellant's appeal to the Appellate Collector of Customs and revision to the Government of India were unsuccessful, with both authorities upholding the rejection of the refund claim as time-barred under Sec. 27. A writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed at the admission stage by a Judge. 3. The appellant challenged the rejection of the refund claim in a writ appeal, arguing that Sec. 27(1) should not apply as the assessment of the imported goods was incorrect. The appellant contended that the assessment of the goods as stainless steel sheets instead of strips was without jurisdiction. 4. The appellant cited the Supreme Court's decision in Patel India v. Union of India to support the argument that the limitation under Sec. 27 should not apply when excess duty is collected without authority of law. The appellant's counsel also referred to a case where a court issued a mandamus for refund despite the claim being time-barred under Sec. 27. 5. The Court considered the applicability of Sec. 27 in cases of incorrect assessment and excess duty collection. It noted that if the import duty collection was contrary to statutory notifications, the limitation under Sec. 27 may not apply. However, as the authorities had not examined the merits of the appellant's contention regarding the assessment, the Court could not issue a writ of Mandamus without such a finding. 6. The Court held that if the collection of import duty was contrary to statutory notifications, Sec. 27 may not apply, and relief could be granted under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The Court quashed the order rejecting the refund claim and directed the authorities to reconsider the claim in light of the statutory notifications. 7. The appeal was allowed, and a rule was issued for further consideration of the refund claim. No costs were awarded, and the revisional authority was instructed to expedite the disposal of the refund claim. End of Judgment
|
