Limitation under Customs refund law does not bar writ relief for duty collected without authority of law.

A refund claim for excess customs duty was barred under section 27 of the Customs Act because the application was filed beyond six months from payment, so rejection of the statutory refund claim was legally valid. However, the excess duty had been collected contrary to the applicable exemption notification and was therefore without authority of law. On that basis, writ relief under article 226 remained available despite the limitation bar, and mandamus could issue for refund of the illegally collected amount.

---

---

Issues: Whether a refund claim for excess customs duty was barred by limitation under section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the excess duty collected contrary to the applicable exemption notification could still be directed to be refunded in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The refund application was made beyond six months from the date of payment and was therefore hit by the statutory limitation under section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The rejection of the refund claim by the customs authorities on that ground was thus legally valid. At the same time, the excess amount had been recovered contrary to the exemption notification and was consequently collected without authority of law. The existence of such illegal recovery justified issuance of mandamus under article 226 of the Constitution of India, notwithstanding the statutory bar to the refund application.

Conclusion: The limitation objection succeeded against the refund application, but the petitioner was entitled to refund of the excess duty through writ jurisdiction; the authorities were directed to refund the amount.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory limitation on refund claims does not preclude writ relief for refund of duty collected without authority of law when the levy itself was contrary to the governing exemption notification.

---