1987 (8) TMI 305 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Refund claim rejected as barred by time
- Locus standi of the appellants in filing the appeal
- Denial of principles of natural justice in the appeal process

Refund Claim Rejected as Barred by Time:
The appeal arose from an order passed by the Collector of Customs rejecting a refund claim made by M/s. State Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Corporation of India Ltd. for 17 drums of drugs initially short-landed. The claim was amended due to subsequent events, leading to a refund entitlement of Rs. 5,703.20. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim as time-barred since the duty was paid on 25.1.82, and the claim was made on 28.8.82, exceeding the six-month time limit under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the appeal by the State Trading Corporation of India. The issue revolved around the timeliness of the claim and the subsequent amendment, with arguments presented by both parties regarding the validity of the claim within the statutory time limit.

Locus Standi of the Appellants:
During the appeal hearing, it was contended that the State Trading Corporation of India lacked locus standi to file the appeal against the Assistant Collector's order. The right of appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act is conferred on the aggrieved person, necessitating the appellant to allege being aggrieved by the lower authority's order. The State Trading Corporation failed to establish itself as a party to the proceedings before the Assistant Collector or as a successor in interest to M/s. State Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Corporation of India. The Collector (Appeals) rightly held that the appellant lacked locus standi, emphasizing the statutory requirement for the appellant to demonstrate being aggrieved by the lower authority's decision.

Denial of Principles of Natural Justice in the Appeal Process:
The issue of denial of principles of natural justice arose concerning the lack of a personal hearing granted by the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals). The appellant argued that failure to provide a personal hearing rendered the orders invalid. However, the Tribunal clarified that the right to a personal hearing under Section 128-A(1) of the Customs Act is optional and must be specifically requested before the appeal is heard. The appellant's failure to request a personal hearing precluded the complaint of lack of opportunity post an adverse order. The Tribunal rejected the contention that a personal hearing is mandatory in the absence of a specific request, emphasizing the statutory provision for optional personal hearings for speedy disposal of appeals.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the appellant's failure to establish locus standi and the optional nature of requesting a personal hearing under the Customs Act. The judgment underscored the statutory requirements for appeals, the importance of demonstrating aggrievement, and the discretionary nature of seeking a personal hearing in appeal proceedings.