Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 1985 (7) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1985 (7) TMI 108 - HC - Customs

Issues:
Challenge to the decision of the Union of India rejecting the claim for refund of countervailing duty on the ground of being time-barred.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a partnership firm, challenged the decision of the Union of India rejecting their claim for refund of countervailing duty as time-barred. The petitioner imported radio parts from Japan and paid additional countervailing duty of Rs. 2509.50. The petitioner contended that the levy of countervailing duty was without jurisdiction as it was not leviable under the Customs Act, 1962. The duty was paid on 14th April, 1969, and the application for refund was filed on 14th December, 1969. The authorities rejected the claim as time-barred under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, without discussing the question of whether the countervailing duty was leviable at all in this case.

The petitioner argued that Section 27(1) of the Customs Act was not applicable at the relevant time as the Indian Tariff Act, 1934, was in force in 1968-69, under which countervailing duty had to be paid. The Customs Tariff Act, enacted in 1975, under Section 3, levies additional duty equal to excise duty. The authorities did not address the issue of whether countervailing duty was leviable in this case. The petitioner consistently maintained that the duty was not leviable, but the authorities did not discuss this aspect.

In response to the petition, the authorities denied that the levying of countervailing duty was illegal, stating that all electronic valves used for manufacturing electronic instruments are chargeable to countervailing duty under the Central Excise Tariff. However, the authorities failed to address the crucial question of whether Section 27 of the Customs Act was applicable in this case. The court held that it was mandatory for the Assistant Collector of Customs to give a finding on this issue. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Collector of Customs for a decision in accordance with the law.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates