1990 (6) TMI 191 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of refund claims for excess duty paid
- Applicability of period of limitation for refund claims
- Interpretation of Sections 154 and 27 of the Customs Act, 1962
- Correction of clerical and arithmetical errors in Bill of Entry
- Precedents and decisions influencing the judgment

Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Calcutta involved the rejection of refund claims amounting to Rs. 14,50,762.09 and Rs. 6,46,725.46 for excess duty paid under two Bill of Entries. The appellants contended that the excess payment was due to clerical and arithmetical errors. The dispute centered on the applicability of the period of limitation for refund claims under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants argued for a one-year limitation period applicable to the Government, while the authorities maintained a six-month limitation for Government Undertakings. The Tribunal held that the six-month limitation applied to Government Undertakings, thus rejecting the contention for a one-year limitation period.

Regarding the interpretation of Sections 154 and 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, the appellants argued that the corrections made in the Bill of Entry rendered the amounts payable under Section 154, not falling under Section 27. However, the authorities contended that Section 154 only allowed corrections of errors and did not provide for refunds, which were governed by Section 27. The Tribunal cited precedents and the Supreme Court's decision in Collector of Central Excise v. Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills to support the view that refund claims must adhere to the period of limitation prescribed in the Act.

The Tribunal emphasized that corrections under Section 154 did not automatically entitle the appellants to refunds beyond the six-month limitation period stipulated in Section 27. Refunds for excess duty paid were solely governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, and not Section 154. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' rejection of the refund claims, citing the binding nature of the Supreme Court's decisions and the statutory limitations set forth in the Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the rejection of the refund claims by the Collector of Customs (Appeals).