1984 (3) TMI 376 - AT - Customs

Customs Tribunal Upholds Time-Barred Refund Claims Decision

JALARAM TRADING COMPANY Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

The Tribunal upheld the lower Customs authorities' decision, ruling that the refund claims were time-barred under section 27(1) of the Customs Act. It ... - Issues Involved:1. Legality of the orders of the lower Customs authorities in dismissing the refund claims as being barred by time under section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Interpretation of section 27(3) of the Customs Act regarding the entitlement to refund without a claim.3. Applicability of the general law of limitation to claims under the Customs Act.4. Whether the Tribunal is a 'court' for the purposes of applying general laws.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Orders of the Lower Customs Authorities:The primary issue was whether the lower Customs authorities were correct in dismissing the refund claims as time-barred under section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants had paid customs duty on imported snap fasteners but later claimed that the duty should not have exceeded 40% as per Exemption Notification No. 29-Cus., dated 10-2-1979. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claims as they were filed beyond the six-month period prescribed by section 27. This decision was upheld by the Appellate Collector, who emphasized that the provisions of section 27 are mandatory.2. Interpretation of Section 27(3) of the Customs Act:The appellants argued that under section 27(3), any person could claim a refund resulting from an order passed in appeal or revision without having to make any claim. They contended that this provision was independent of the six-month limitation period in section 27(1). However, the Tribunal clarified that the term 'any person' in section 27(3) refers specifically to the person who was a party to the appeal or revision. Therefore, the appellants, who were not parties to the original proceedings, could not benefit from this provision.3. Applicability of the General Law of Limitation:The appellants argued that the general law of limitation should apply, allowing a three-year period for filing refund claims. They cited various High Court and Supreme Court decisions to support this contention. However, the Tribunal reiterated its earlier decisions, emphasizing that the Customs Act is a special legislation with specific provisions for limitation. It held that the six-month period prescribed by section 27(1) is binding and cannot be overridden by the general law of limitation. The Tribunal referenced its previous judgments, including Miles India Ltd. v. Appellate Collector of Customs, which confirmed that claims for refund must adhere to the Customs Act's provisions.4. Whether the Tribunal is a 'Court':The appellants contended that the Tribunal should be considered a court, thereby subject to the general law of limitation. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, citing the Karnataka High Court decision in AIR 1983 Karnataka 164. The Tribunal noted that it is a quasi-judicial body with specific powers conferred by the Customs Act and not a court in the strict sense. It further highlighted that only specified provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and Criminal Procedure Code apply to the Tribunal, excluding the application of other general laws.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the lower authorities' decision that the refund claims were time-barred under section 27(1) of the Customs Act. It held that the specific limitation period prescribed by the Customs Act takes precedence over the general law of limitation and that the Tribunal is not a court for the purposes of applying general laws. The Tribunal also clarified that the term 'any person' in section 27(3) refers only to those directly involved in the appeal or revision proceedings.