Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1985 (1) TMI 316

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... were not resins. Thereafter, the respondents filed a refund claim directly to the Central Board of Excise and Customs for sanction of the refund of excess customs duty paid by them on account of the wrong classification and assessment of Polyols as Resins which was received on 1-12-1977. The copy of the same was also sent to the concerned Assistant Collector for information. The Board did not entertain the refund claim filed by the respondents and advised the respondents to file the refund application to the concerned Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund) treated the refund claim application of the respondents filed with the Board as a refund claim within the meaning of Section 27 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to entertain these proceedings as an appeal before it. According to him, the respondents have received a Notice from the Central Government calling it a review show cause notice against order in Appeal No. 139 of 1981, dated 23-3-1981. The original order of the Assistant Collector was passed on 5-7-1980 and the Appellate order is dated 23-3-1981 which is sought to be reversed by the issue of the said Review Show Cause Notice. A hearing was granted by a Bench comprising of one Additional Secretary and one Joint Secretary of the Government of India on 23-1-1982 but no order was passed till 11th October, 1982 on which date the Cust .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... been empowered under the provision of this Sub-section to proceed with such proceedings from the stage, at which it was on that day, as if such proceeding or matter were filed before it. This Tribunal has got Jurisdiction to hear this matter as an appeal. 8. The submission made by Shri Ramamurty is without any force in view of the statutory provisions as laid down under Section 131 B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. As per the provisions of this sub-section, every proceedings which is pending immediately before the appointed day before the Central Government under Section 131, as it stood immediately before that day, shall stand transferred on that day to the Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal may proceed with such proceeding or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed to this Tribunal in view of the provisions of Section 13l B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 9. We overrule this preliminary objection of the learned counsel of the respondents. 10. On merits, there is no dispute about the facts that duty of customs sought to be refunded was paid during the period 15-11-1976 to 28-1-1978 and that the refund claim was received on 1-12-1977. The only question which requires determination is whether the period of limitation as provided under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 would be applicable in this case or provisions of the general law of limitation would be applicable ? 11. The Appellate Collector of Customs in the impugned order extended the time limit as contained in the Indian Law of Limit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the restrictions imposed by the statute as to time limit. There is not a single decision either of the Supreme Court or of any High Court laying down the proposition that a quasi-judicial authority which is a creation of the statute would be competent to invoke the provisions of the general law of limitation while allowing or disallowing the refund claim of a party by it under the provisions of the statute. The general law of limitation is not applicable in such eases and the Appellate Collector by extending the period of 3 years as contained in the Limitation Act in these proceedings has acted illegally. This proposition of law has been re-affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Count in its latest decision m the case of Miles India Limited v. As .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates