9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (6) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid in excess under Bill of Entry No. DI-358 dated 12-5-1982 with interest and Bill of Entry No. DI-874 dated 10-5-1982 with interest, respectively. The refund claims of the appellants were rejected by the lower authorities and the present appeal has been filed against those orders, mentioned above. 2. The case of the appellants is that the appellants were sending advise to the clearing agent to effect clearance of materials from bond against the bill of entries and accordingly the clearing agents de-bonded 200 cases (200 M/ts) in two lots of 100 cases (100 M/ts) each against Ex-Bond home consumption Bill of Entry No. DI-798 of 22-1-1982 and DI-1083 of 26-3-1982 by paying duty against each lot of 100 cases as calculated in the appeal peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded that the appellants are a Government of India undertaking and all the shares except one are held by the President of India and the one is held in the name of Ministry of Industry. It was, therefore, contended that the extended period of one year is available to the appellants. But the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals) held that the claim is covered under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. He also held that the extended period of limitation of one year is applicable only to the Government and not to Government Undertakings or Government organisations. It was, therefore, held that even if 99% share of the appellants are held by the President of India and 1% by the Ministry of Industry, the appellants remains to be a Corporation an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y application made beyond the period of six months contemplated under above section is liable to be rejected. In this connection, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills, reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 478 (SC). 5. The learned Advocate Shri Bajoria contended that if the mistake is a clerical mistake which is corrected by the respondent, Section 27 is not applicable and in this connection he relied on a decision of the Tribunal reported in 1986 (24) E.L.T. 589 [Collector of Customs v. Southern Solvents and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.]. 6. We have heard both the sides in detail. As far as the first contention of Shri Bajoria, the learned Sr. Advocate for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill be guided by the general law and the date of limitation would be the starting point, when the mistake or the error comes to light. But in making claims for refund before the departmental authority, an assessee is bound within four corners of the statute and the period of limitation prescribed in the Central Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder must be adhered to. The authorities functioning under the Act are bound by the provisions of the Act. If the proceedings are taken under the Act by the department, the provisions of limitation prescribed in the Act will prevail. It may, however, be open to the department to initiate proceedings in the Civil Court for recovery of the amount due to the department in case when such a remedy is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms Act, 1962. Even though a correction has been made in the Bill of Entry with respect to the over-payments of the amounts in question made by the appellants, still the refund is governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The mere fact that the corrections are made in the Bill of Entry under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not sufficient to grant the refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, beyond the prescribed limit of six months. The authorities functioning under the Act are bound by the period of limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the Act. This Tribunal being a creature of statute also cannot enhance that period of limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. These are the principles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preme Court upheld this decision by holding that there were no infirmities in the findings of this Tribunal. This was again reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills case. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the only section for refund of the excess duty paid by the appellant, is Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and there is no other provision providing for such refund by the Customs authorities. Section 154 speaks of only clerical or arithmetical directions. In such circumstances, the application for refund being beyond the time limit was rejected by the lower authorities. We also observe that merely because the Bill of Entry was corrected in view of Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, the refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
