1984 (9) TMI 179 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Customs Act provisions regarding duty payment on exported goods.
2. Validity of demand for duty payment and time-barred nature of the demand.
3. Right to claim refund after paying duty under protest.
4. Opportunity for personal hearing and procedural fairness in customs proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the duty payment on exported goods by M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. The issue revolved around the interpretation of Sections 16, 50, and 51 of the Customs Act concerning the calculation of duty rates based on the date of Shipping Bill presentation and vessel's entry outward date.

2. The demand for duty payment was challenged on the grounds of being time-barred under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The Appellate Collector held that even if the demand was time-barred, the duty being legally chargeable and paid could not be refunded. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the demand was indeed time-barred, and the payment made under protest reserved the right to claim a refund.

3. The appellants paid the duty under protest to avoid potential harassment by customs authorities but later appealed the demand's legality. The Tribunal emphasized that paying under protest and reserving the right to claim a refund allowed the appellants to challenge the demand's validity through the appeal process.

4. Procedural fairness was also a significant issue in the case. The Tribunal noted that the Assistant Collector's letter demanding payment lacked a formal order and did not grant a personal hearing as requested by the appellants. This lack of procedural fairness led the Tribunal to quash the lower authorities' orders and allow the appeal, providing the appellants the opportunity to seek a refund as per the law.

Separate Judgment:
1. A dissenting opinion was presented by Member (T) U. Rao, who disagreed with the majority decision. Rao argued that the Assistant Collector's letter was not an appealable order and did not constitute a formal decision. Rao contended that there was no demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act, making the question of a time-barred demand irrelevant. Rao suggested that the payment was voluntarily made without coercion, and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.