1992 (6) TMI 120 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Refund Claim for Additional Duty of Customs (CVD)
2. Re-classification of Imported Goods
3. Applicability of State Excise Duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975
4. Limitation Period for Filing Refund Claims

Detailed Analysis:

1. Refund Claim for Additional Duty of Customs (CVD):

The appellants sought a refund of additional duty collected on a consignment of British Spirit/Scotch Malt, arguing that the State Excise duty should not be included under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. They contended that since there is no Central Excise Duty on compound alcoholic preparations used for manufacturing beverages, no CVD was payable. The Assistant Collector initially rejected this claim, concluding that State Excise duty is applicable for additional duty of customs under Section 3 of the CTA, 1975. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, noting that the goods were not denatured alcoholic liquors, which would be excluded from such duty.

2. Re-classification of Imported Goods:

In one appeal, the appellants argued that the goods should be reclassified under sub-heading 2208.10 CTA as compound alcoholic preparations, subject to a lower duty rate. They claimed that the goods were concentrates, not portable whisky, and thus should not be classified under the higher duty rate applicable to whisky. The Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) rejected this claim as it was not part of the original refund claim and was filed beyond the statutory time limit under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. Applicability of State Excise Duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975:

The appellants contended that the term "Excise Duty" in Section 3(1) of the CTA, 1975, should refer only to Central Excise Duty and not State Excise Duty. They argued that since the goods were alcohol, which is outside the purview of Central Excise, no additional duty of customs should be levied. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court decision in Khandelwal Metal & Engineering Works v. U.O.I., which clarified that the charging section for customs duty is Section 12 of the Customs Act, and the measure of the tax does not determine its nature. Therefore, the measure of additional duty could include State Excise duty.

4. Limitation Period for Filing Refund Claims:

The Tribunal considered whether the appellants could amend their refund claims to include reclassification and refund of basic customs duty after the statutory time limit. It was noted that the original claim was only for refund of CVD and not for reclassification. The Tribunal cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court decision in Miles India Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs, which held that statutory authorities are bound by the limitation period prescribed in the statute. Therefore, the subsequent claim for reclassification was deemed a fresh claim and barred by limitation.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal rejected the appeals, upholding the lower authorities' decisions. The claims for refund of additional duty of customs (CVD) were not valid as the term "Excise Duty" under Section 3 of the CTA, 1975, includes State Excise Duty. The claims for reclassification were barred by limitation as they were not part of the original refund claims and were filed beyond the statutory time limit. The Tribunal emphasized that statutory authorities cannot transgress the limitation period prescribed in the statute.