9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim for refund of duty on shortages rejected as barred under Section 27(1) - Whether date of payment of duty to be excluded for computation of limitation period? Analysis: The appeal arises from an order by the Collector of Customs rejecting the appellant's claim for refund of duty on shortages as barred under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act. The Asstt. Collector of Customs and the Collector (Appeals) both rejected the claim, stating it was beyond the limitation period. The appellant contended that the duty was paid on 12-6-1981, and the application for refund was made on 12-12-1981, arguing that the date of payment of duty should be excluded for calculating the limitation period. During the appeal hearing, the appellant's Materials Manager argued for the exclusion of the date of payment of duty for computing the limitation period, while the Departmental Representative contended that the application for refund must be made within six months from the date of payment of duty. The key legal question was whether the date of payment should be excluded for the purpose of calculating the limitation period under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act. Section 27(1) of the Customs Act specifies the time limit for claiming a refund of duty paid. It mandates that the application for refund must be made within six months from the date of payment of duty. However, the Act does not explicitly provide for the exclusion of the date of payment for computing the limitation period. In contrast, Section 9 of the General Clauses Act states that when the word "from" is used, the first day is to be excluded for computation purposes. Given that the Customs Act is a Central Act made after January 3, 1868, Section 9 of the General Clauses Act is applicable to determine the computation of the limitation period. Therefore, the date of payment of duty should be excluded when calculating the six-month limitation period for claiming a refund. In this case, since the duty was paid on 12-6-1981 and the application for refund was received on 12-12-1981, the application was within the limitation period, as the last day for filing the application was considered. The appeal tribunal found that the authorities below had erred in not considering the provisions of the General Clauses Act and wrongly rejecting the claim as time-barred. The tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the previous orders, and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector for consideration of the refund claim on its merits. The Assistant Collector was directed to resolve the matter within three months from the date of the tribunal's order, considering the claim related to the year 1985.
|
