9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (5) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect or taking any steps in terms thereof or thereunder and to refund to the writ petitioner a sum of Rs. 9,54,983.42 P. 2. The principal contention of Mr. Mitter appearing in support of the appellant, is that the question of the refund application being barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not and cannot arise. 3. In order to appreciate the contentions raised, a brief reference to the facts ought to be noted at this juncture. It appears that the shipment of the imported goods was effected on 28th June, 1985 by the Orissa State Electricity Board and on April 17, 1986 the necessary Bill of Entry was filed for clearance of the goods. On the self-same date, viz. April 17, 1986 the Customs Authorities assessed the duty to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lenge in this appeal. 4. On a proper analysis of the factual aspect of the matter, it appears therefore that even though the duty had been paid in terms of the order of assessment on 17th April, 1986, on 31st October, 1986 the State Electricity Board was informed about the excess levy and was further directed to lodge its claim for refund as noted above fully. There is no element of delay in the matter of making an application for refund from the date of such information before the appropriate authority, but the issue arises whether Section 27 of the Customs Act would be a bar in presenting a claim for refund. Apart from the fact that the Governmental agency ought not to take the plea of limitation as a plea to defeat a legitimate claim o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... October, 1986 and it is only on 31st October, 1986 that such a knowledge is said to have been acquired by the writ petitioner through the intimation dated 15th October, 1986. In our view, the date of knowledge ought to be a material factor in the matter of computation of the period of limitation in the present set of facts and circumstances. Mr. Mitter placed reliance on the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court and submitted that it would otherwise be an unjust enrichment and as a matter of fact, Article 113 of the Limitation Act ought to be made applicable in the facts and circumstances of the matter under consideration instead of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. In the view we have taken as above, we need not deal with the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
