9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and upon hearing the arguments of Shri S.K. Choudhury, Senior Departmental Representative for the respondent, the Tribunal makes the following : 3. Aggrieved by the Order No. C.3/1487/1976 dated 7-6-1976 of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras, upholding the order No. S. 25/670/76 dated 27-2-1976 of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras, rejecting his claim for refund of excess customs duty paid as barred under Sec. 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, the appellant filed this petition as a revision application before the Government of India on 22-10-1980. By virtue of Sec. 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, this petition has been transferred to the Tribunal to be heard as an appeal. 4. The appellant has claimed refund of duty on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Limitation Act. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act was applicable to even statutory tribunals and relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1982 Supreme Court, p. 119. Apart from that, the learned counsel cited a Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court reported in (1982) II M.L.J., p. 406, and contended that in the light of the ratio of this Bench decision, this Tribunal should be deemed to be a court within the meaning of Sec. 29 of the Limitation Act for the applicability of Sec. 5 of that Act. 6. The Departmental Representative contended that the Customs Act, 1962 is a self-contained enactment and Sec. 27(l)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 prescribes a period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Madras High Court reported in (1982) II M.L.J., p. 406 has, in our opinion, no bearing on the question arising for consideration in this appeal. The Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court in (1982) II M.L.J. 406, dealing with a case under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) (as amended by XXIII of 1973) held that the appellate authority under the Rent Control Act was a court within the meaning of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. This Division Bench ruling of the Madras High Court is clearly distinguishable and has no bearing on the present case because the Division Bench held that the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was a court in view of certain pecul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith a matter arising under the Kerala Sales Tax Act and considered the question as to whether a civil court will have jurisdiction to entertain a suit in respect of a tax wrongly or illegally collected by the sales tax authorities. The Supreme Court adopting the ratio in the earlier ruling of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1965 Supreme Court, 1943 (Kamala Mills v. State of Bombay) has clearly held that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit. Therefore, when the Supreme Court has clearly held that even a common law court will have no jurisdiction to entertain a suit in respect of a matter arising under a special enactment like that of Kerata Sales Tax Act or Bombay Sales Tax Act, a fortiori it fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jurisdiction of the civil court must be deemed excluded . The jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit on the ground that duty was improperly or illegally levied is excluded. Therefore, as observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, where a statute creates a new right or liability and provides a complete machinery for obtaining redress against erroneous exercise of authority, jurisdiction of the civil court to grant relief is barred. Liability to pay a duty of customs is not a common law liability. It arises by virtue of the Sea Customs Act ; in respect of any grievance arising in consequence of enforcement of that liability, machinery has been provided by the Act. Having regard to the complicated nature of the questions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .T. 950 (Cal.) (Acharya Brothers v. Union of India) wherein the Calcutta High Court has clearly held that the Customs Act is a complete code and provides for assessment, collection procedure and also remedies and when specific procedures for claiming refund of duty or money paid have been made in the Act itself, one must follow the procedure as laid down therein. 11. A Special Bench of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has also taken the view in the case of Afro-Asian Associates, Bombay, and Sun Export Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (reported in 1983 ECR 183D (Cegat) = 1983 E.L.T. 372 that unless the particular Act under consideration makes provision for any type of condonation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
