9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (12) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 71/71-Central Excise dated 29th May, 1971 the acrylic sheets imported by them were exempted from Central Excise duty in excess of 30% ad valorem. This claim of refund was rejected by the Assistant Collector as time-barred, the duty having been paid on 13-4-1978 whereas the refund claim was received in the Refund Department of the Bombay Custom House on 24-10-1979. The importer s appeal to the Appellate Collector was rejected by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay on the same ground, that is to say, that the claim for refund was time-barred under section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. This appeal was posted for hearing today at New Delhi on 20-12-1982, notice whereof was given to the importer on 16-11-1982. By telegram dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act Act, they have a right to claim back the amount paid in excess of 30%+1.5% (Special Excise duty) within three years from the date they came to know about the mistake. The first time they came to know that the goods in question were assessable to CVD at the rate of 31.5% and/or the Exemption Notification No. 71/71 dated 29-5-1971 should have been made applicable to the goods, was, on or about 18-10-1979, when they came to know Appellate Collector s Order in Appeal dated 24-9-1979. (v) The recovery of excess duty should be treated as made without authority of law and their case therefore attracts section 72 of the Contract Law and not section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. (vi) The Appellate Collector of Customs has overlooked the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision applications taking the view that because the goods did not attract additional duty of customs under section 2A of the Indian Tariff Act, the provisions of section 27(1) were not applicable. Furthermore, the Bombay High Court had also adopted the same view as taken by the Joint Secretary in Misc. Petition No. 666 of 1969. 5. The 11 revision applications allowed by the Joint Secretary in his Orders No. 8019-29 of 1969 dated 8-12-1969 are said to have been allowed on the grounds that the goods did not attract additional duty of customs under section 2A of the Indian Tariff Act and so section 27(1) was not applicable. This argument fails in this case before us because it is not their importer s claim that the goods in question i.e. a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not relevant to the goods before it. As the letter of protest related to a consignment of 59 items of V.P. Latex which could not be connected with any of the 5 consignments in question, the Court went on to pronounce that the view taken by the authorities could not be shown to be incorrect. It, therefore dismissed the appeal. 7. This decision conclusively established that an application for refund under the provisions of the Customs Act, as is in the present case, gets barred if made beyond the period prescribed in terms of section 27 of the Act. It does not appear that any period of limitation other than that contained in section 27 governs an application for refund. The three year period of limitation under the Limitation Act, relied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
