1986 (10) TMI 146 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Refund claims rejected as time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act.
- Appellants argue that Limitation Act should apply instead of Customs Act.
- Contention raised regarding applicability of Section 72 of the Contract Act.
- Reference made to earlier Tribunal decision and subsequent Supreme Court ruling.
- Two appellants cite judgments for reconsideration of the decision.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved 16 appeals that raised a common question of law regarding the rejection of refund claims as time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The appellants had initially preferred claims for refund of duty paid, which were rejected by the Assistant Collector and upheld by the Appellate Collector on the grounds of exceeding the prescribed time limit. The revision petitions against these orders were transferred to the Tribunal for consideration.

The appellants contended that their refund claims, made after the limitation period, should be governed by the provisions of the Limitation Act instead of the Customs Act. They argued that their claims fell under Section 72 of the Contract Act and should not be subject to the time limit specified in Section 27 of the Customs Act. However, a previous Tribunal decision (M/s. Miles India Limited) had rejected a similar argument, which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court in a related case (1985 ECR 289). The Tribunal reaffirmed that authorities under the Customs Act are bound by the Act's limitation provisions, as upheld by the Supreme Court.

Two appellants referenced judgments from the Supreme Court and the Bombay High Court to challenge the Tribunal's decision. The Supreme Court case highlighted dealt with duty claimed under an ultra-vires provision, leading to a refund outside the statute due to illegal collection. However, the Tribunal found the facts of the current appeals distinguishable, as the duty collection was not under an invalid provision. The Bombay High Court judgment was also considered, emphasizing that decisions must align with the Customs Act's provisions, not writ jurisdiction powers. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decisions to reject the refund claims as time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.