9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (6) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellants and the appellants were, therefore, requested to lodge refund claim before the Assistant Collector of Customs. The appellants accordingly made refund claim on 6-6-1986. The learned Assistant Collector rejected the claim of the appellant as the claim was made beyond the period of six months from the date of payment of duty, i.e. 30-10-1985. This decision was confirmed by the learned Collector (Appeals). Against that decision the present appeal has been preferred before this Tribunal. 3. The learned Advocate Shri J.P. Srivastava appearing along with Shri B. Kumar, Advocate, raised before three important questions in this case. In this connection, they drew my attention to Sec. 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was contended in the first instance that the appellants are a corporation and 100% of the shares are held by the Government. It was, therefore, his contention that appellant is a Government and the period of limitation is one year. In this connection, he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1975 S.C. 1331 Sukhdeo Singh v. B. Vagat Ram. It was, therefore, his contention that the appellant is a Government and the period of limitation is one ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant is only a corporation and not a Government. In this connection, he relied on a ruling of the Bombay High Court reported in AIR 1988 Bom. 416 and referred to para 9 in particular. He contended that Central Government means proper Department/Ministry of Government. Their Lordships in the above-mentioned case, while dis.c.ussing about the Air Corrporations Act, 1953 and while dealing with Section 34 of the Act, held as follows : Nature of the power lodged in Section 34 implies that the Central Government contemplated thereby is an administering Department/Ministry of that Government, i.e. Executive. 7. The learned S.D.R. also contended that this corporation of the appellant is created by an Act of Parliament and, therefore, it cannot be treated as a Government for the purpose of Section 27. 8. As far as the second contention of the appellant is concerned, Shri Biswas stated that the Item Nos. 1 and 8 are not imported for the personal use of the appellant. According to him, personal use means to use personally by the appellant and not for the purpose of testing some other goods manufactured by them which are going to be sold. Personal use contemplates that these g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the time for making the refund application starts from the date of payment of duty. He contended that there is no provision in the Act for the Assistant Collector to intimate about the same. He also contended that the date of limitation is not the date on which the Assistant Collector intimated about the excess payment. In this connection, he relied on the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 353 (SB). He, therefore, contended that merely because the Assistant Collector has intimated about the excess duty, the appellant cannot take advantage of the same and say that the limitation time starts from the date of intimation. It was his contention that the limitation starts on the date of payment of duly alone and not on any further date, as contended by the learned Advocate. He also contended that Section 18 of the Act is not applicable as the assessment in this case cannot be said to be provisional, but the learned Advocate stated that from the fact that a further letter was issued stating that duty was paid in excess, goes to show that it was provisional and an adjustment was to be made in this regard. 10. In view of the rival contentions, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt caution we state that these employees are not servants of Union or the State. These statutory bodies are authorities" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution." It is thus clear that their Lordships have clearly stated that the employees of these statutory authorities are not servants of the Union or State, but they are authorities within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. This observation goes to show that the appellant in this case may be an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, but certainly it cannot be a Government. The reason is that it is only owned by the State Government and it is nothing but a statutory body. Therefore, this contention of the learned Advocate that it is a Government cannot be accepted and on that ground the longer period of limitation of one year is not available to the appellant. 12. Coming to the second limb of the argument of the learned Advocate for the appellant, it was his contention that the appellant is a Government and the Import is made for the personal use of the appellant and, therefore, the time limit is one year. Under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 it is stated that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom Section 27 of the Customs Act is that for the purpose of claiming refund the appellant is a person, but the benefit under Section 27(1)(a) is not available to the appellant as the appellant cannot be said to be an individual within the meaning of Section 27(1)(a) of the Act. The meaning of individual is quoted by the learned Advocate from the Law Lexicon which was given in the light of certain other Acts. But when the meaning of individual is clear from the section of this Act (Customs Act) itself, we cannot traverse beyond the same. Therefore, for the purpose of claiming refund the appellant is a person and for the purpose of applying the extended period of limitation the appellant cannot be said to be an individual. In such circumstances, this contention of the learned Advocate also cannot be accepted and I hold that the period of limitation is six months from the date of payment of duty. 14. The third contention of the learned Advocate is that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 18 of the Customs Act in this case. It was his contention that after the duty was paid, the Assistant Collector wrote a letter to the appellant informing them to lodge a claim for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
