9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (9) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Act for short. 2. The appellant imported a floating boom from West Germany and paid Customs duty on 28-5-1986 and preferred a refund claim in respect of the excess payment of duty in the office of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Customs House, Vizag, on 1-12-1986 after the expiry of the period of limitation of 6 months envisaged by Section 27 of the Act. The refund claim of the appellant was rejected by the original authority and the same was also confirmed in appeal by the lower appellate authority under the impugned order out of which the present appeal arises. 3. Shri L.S. Rao, the Deputy Chief Engineer, and Shri Sharma, Assistant Law Officer of the appellant Port Trust, appearing on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty paid on 28-5-1986 a refund claim was made before the proper officer on 1-12-1986 well after the expiry of 6 months time limit envisaged by Section 27 of the Customs Act. The plea of the learned representative of the Port Trust that the refund claim will have to be construed in terms of Section 27(l)(a) of the Act holding Visakhapatnam Port Trust as a Government is not tenable in law. Port Trust is only a statutory body created under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 for the administration of the port and is not Government within the meaning of Section 27(1) (a) of the Act. Statutory Corporations or statutory bodies are created by special statutes and are governed entirely by the terms and conditions of the particular statutes creating su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rust being a statutory body cannot claim to be a Government within the meaning of Section 27(l)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the period of limitation applicable is only 6 months in terms of Section 27(l)(b) of the Act from the date of payment of duty and admittedly in the present case the refund claim was filed after the expiry of the period of 6 months from the date of payment of duty. The rulings relied upon by the appellant are not applicable in respect of the time barred refund claim before a statutory authority or for that matter before this Tribunal which is a creature of the statute and which is bound by the statutory period of limitation in the Act and cannot traverse beyond the confines of law to grant relief. This position is no long ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court. The appeal was withdrawn. This Court observed that the Customs Authorities, acting under the Act, were justified in disallowing the claim for refund as they were bound by the period of limitation provided therefore in the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. If really the payment of the duty was under a mistake of law the party might seek recourse to such alternative remedy as it might be advised. Therefore, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court extracted above, we hold that the refund claim of the appellant is clearly barred by limitation as rightly held by the authorities below and in this view of the matter the impugned order appealed against is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
