1975 (12) TMI 81 - SC - Customs

Refund is not admissible if application for refund of excess duty paid not filed within prescribed time-limit

Summary

Issues:
1. Charging of customs duty on Pyratex Vinyl Pyridine Latex under the residuary Item 87 instead of Item 39.
2. Refund of excess customs duty charged on Pyratex Vinyl Pyridine Latex.
3. Filing of applications for refund out of time.
4. Applicability of the proviso to Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding payment under protest.
5. Determination of whether the applications for refund were filed out of time.
6. Lack of evidence supporting the claim of payment under protest.
7. Direction for the refund of the excess amount charged on the five consignments.
8. Dismissal of the appeals.

Analysis:

The appellant, a manufacturer of rubber tyres and tubes, imported Pyratex Vinyl Pyridine Latex for production purposes. The Customs authorities charged customs duty on the latex under the residuary Item 87 instead of the appropriate Item 39, resulting in a higher duty. The appellant sought a refund of the excess duty amount charged on five consignments of the latex. The applications for refund were filed after a delay ranging from 1 to 4 months, leading to their dismissal by the Assistant Collector of Customs and subsequent appellate authorities.

The appellant contended that the duty should have been charged under Item 39, as per a recent decision by the Supreme Court. They argued that the duty was paid under protest, exempting them from the six-month limitation for filing refund applications. However, the lack of evidence supporting the protest claim led to the rejection of this argument. The Court noted that the duty was paid for each consignment separately, not through a running account, and no protest was specifically linked to the five consignments in question.

The Court examined the provisions of Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, emphasizing that the appellant's case did not fall under exceptions that would waive the time limit for refund applications. Despite the recent legal precedent cited by the appellant, the Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities regarding the limitation issue. As a result, the appeals were dismissed, and no direction for the refund of the excess amount was granted. The Court found no grounds to overturn the decisions based on the timing of the refund applications, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeals.