2001 (9) TMI 425 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the claim for refund of customs duty filed by M/s. Relaxo Rubber Ltd. is time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal involved the question of whether the claim for refund of customs duty by M/s. Relaxo Rubber Ltd. was within the time limit specified in Section 27 of the Customs Act. The Respondents had filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of imported goods, paid the customs duty, and later discovered pilferage in the goods. The Asstt. Commissioner rejected the refund claim as time-barred, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed it, stating that the duty was not payable due to pilferage under Section 13 of the Customs Act, and the 6-month limitation did not apply. The Revenue argued that the claim should be governed only by Section 27, not Section 13, as the duty was paid post-assessment.

The Respondents contended that the pilferage was noticed upon taking delivery of the goods, and their refund claim within 6 months was justified. They cited legal precedents to support their position, emphasizing that the Airport Authority of India, as the custodian, was also involved in the matter. The Respondents argued that duty refund should be granted since duty had been demanded from the Airport Authority for the pilfered goods. The Respondents highlighted the need for flexibility in limitations to prevent abuse in the system.

The Revenue countered by asserting that the Respondents should have filed the refund claim promptly after noticing the pilferage, and the date of delivery claimed by the Respondents was not officially recorded. They argued that the Customs officer's actions indicated the goods were cleared for delivery post-assessment, thus Section 13 did not apply. The Revenue maintained that the matter did not fall under Section 13 of the Act.

Upon review, the Tribunal analyzed Section 13 of the Customs Act, noting that the duty was paid post-assessment, and the pilferage was evident upon attempted delivery. The Tribunal found that the provisions of Section 13 were not applicable in this case, as the goods were assessed and duty paid before the pilferage was discovered. Legal precedents cited by the Respondents were deemed irrelevant as they pertained to different sections of the Customs Act. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal by the Revenue was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled that the claim for refund of customs duty by M/s. Relaxo Rubber Ltd. was not time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, as the provisions of Section 13 did not apply in this scenario. The decision emphasized the timing of duty payment, assessment, and discovery of pilferage in determining the applicability of relevant legal provisions.