Refund claims and statutory limitation: unconstitutional levy argument did not override the Customs Act time bar.

Refund claims for export cess were held to be governed by the six-month limitation period under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 because they were filed after that period and were not shown to have been made under protest. The argument that the limitation bar did not apply since the levy on prawns was unconstitutional was rejected, as there was no order declaring the levy unconstitutional. The earlier relied-upon ruling was treated as deciding only that exports of prawns or shrimps were not exigible to cess under the Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940. The rejection of the refund claims was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund claims for export cess were barred by limitation under the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the plea that the cess levy was unconstitutional displaced the limitation bar.

Analysis: The claims were filed beyond six months from the date of payment and were not stated to have been made under protest. The statutory limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 therefore governed the refund claims. The contention that limitation did not apply because the levy on prawns was unconstitutional was rejected, since there was no order declaring the levy unconstitutional. The prior decision relied upon had only held that exports of prawns or shrimps were not exigible to cess under Section 3 of the Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940.

Conclusion: The refund claims were barred by limitation and the appeals failed.

Final Conclusion: The refund claims could not be entertained, and the rejection by the authorities was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim filed beyond the statutory limitation period under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 remains barred unless the levy is shown to have been lawfully challenged within the prescribed framework.

---