1986 (7) TMI 96 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the legality of the order rejecting the application for refund of duty paid by the petitioners.
2. Interpretation of Section 27 of the Customs Act regarding the limitation period for seeking a refund.
3. Consideration of whether duty paid under a mistake of law can be refunded.
4. Analysis of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) decision and its binding effect on subordinate authorities.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment delivered by Pendse, J. of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay pertains to a petition challenging the legality of an order passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Bombay, rejecting the application for refund of duty paid by the petitioners. The petitioners had imported a Lucop Step and Repeat Machine and paid duty under Tariff Item No. 90.10. Subsequently, they discovered a decision by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) classifying the machine under Tariff Item No. 84.35 with a lower duty rate. The petitioners sought a refund of the excess duty paid, which was rejected by the Assistant Collector on grounds of limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act and on the merits of the assessment order. The court considered the argument that duty paid under a mistake of law should be refunded within three years of knowledge of the mistake, irrespective of the provisions of Section 27. The court held that the excessive duty paid under a mistake of law cannot be retained by the Department, emphasizing the need for a refund in such cases.

The court further analyzed the Collector of Customs (Appeals) decision, which had classified an identical machine under a different tariff item, and held that this decision was final and binding on all subordinate authorities. The Assistant Collector's failure to consider this decision while rejecting the refund application was deemed erroneous by the court. The court concluded that the Assistant Collector's order was incorrect, and directed the Assistant Collector to determine the excess duty paid by the petitioners and refund it within three months. The court emphasized that the refund was warranted due to the mistake of law in the assessment, disregarding the argument that the petitioners should have appealed the initial assessment order under a different tariff item. The judgment did not award costs in this case.