2000 (3) TMI 345 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the refund claims filed by the Commandant, Embarkation Headquarters, Bombay were hit by the time limit specified in section 27 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. In Appeal No. C/257/94-B, the Advocate argued that the goods were provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the Customs Act, and the final assessment was done later. It was contended that no refund application was necessary as the duty should have been refunded immediately after finalization. Reference was made to a previous case to support this argument. It was emphasized that the importer had made repeated requests for the refund.

2. Regarding Appeal No. C/258/94-B2, it was highlighted that the Bill of Entry was provisionally assessed, and duty was paid, followed by a final assessment. The Advocate argued that the refund claim filed within one year of the adjustment of duty after final assessment was not time-barred as per the Explanation to Section 27.

3. The Department's representative contended that any refund of duty must be claimed under Section 27 by making an application to the Assistant Collector of Customs. It was argued that the refund claims were time-barred as they were filed beyond the stipulated one-year period from the date of duty payment. The effect of the Explanation to the pre-amended Section 27 was also discussed.

4. The Tribunal analyzed both appeals separately. For Appeal C/258/94-B2, it was noted that the refund claim filed after one year of the final assessment was time-barred, rejecting the appellant's interpretation of the provision. The Tribunal held that the claim was hit by the time limit as per Section 27.

5. In the case of Appeal C/257/94-B2, the Tribunal referred to a previous decision which stated that no refund application was required under Section 27 if the duty had been provisionally paid and later adjusted. The Tribunal also cited another case supporting the view that refunds or recoveries resulting from finalization of provisional assessment should be done suo motu without any time limitation. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in C/257/94-B2 and rejected the appeal in C/258/94-B2.