1988 (8) TMI 250 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of refund claim
- Time limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962
- Payment of duty under protest
- Interpretation of Section 27 regarding refund claims

Analysis:
The case involves the appellants appealing against the rejection of their refund claim for Customs duty paid upon re-importation of engine valves. The appellants argued that since the goods were of Indian origin and re-imported, Customs duty was not leviable. They claimed the duty was paid under protest, citing a letter from their Customs House Agents requesting not to charge duty. However, the respondent contended that the duty was not paid under protest and that the time limit for refund claims starts from the date of payment of duty, not from the goods going to the factory.

The Tribunal examined Section 27 of the Customs Act, which allows refund claims within six months from the date of duty payment, with an exception for payments made under protest. The appellants failed to prove that the duty was paid under protest as the letter requesting not to charge duty did not constitute a protest. The Tribunal referenced a previous case to emphasize that an explicit protest is necessary to qualify for the proviso under Section 27.

Regarding the time limitation, the Tribunal rejected the appellants' argument that the six-month period should start from when the goods arrived in the factory and were verified by the Central Excise Inspector. The Tribunal upheld that the limitation period begins from the date of duty payment, not from subsequent events like goods reaching the factory.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the duty was not paid under protest, and the refund claim was time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The judgment highlights the importance of clear protest for claiming the benefit of the proviso and clarifies that the limitation period for refund claims starts from the date of duty payment.