Statutory limitation controls customs refund claims despite Article 265 where refund applications are filed beyond time.

A claim for refund of customs duty allegedly levied without authority of law remained subject to the statutory refund scheme, including its limitation period. The court held that once the petitioner chose the refund remedy under the customs law, the claim had to comply with the conditions attached to that provision and could not be maintained independently on the basis of Article 265 of the Constitution. Because the refund applications were filed beyond time, the authorities were justified in rejecting them, and the refund claim was barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether a claim for refund of customs duty, alleged to have been levied without authority of law, could be pursued in writ jurisdiction despite non-compliance with the limitation prescribed under the refund provision.

Analysis: The refund sought by the petitioner was one contemplated by the statutory scheme governing customs refunds. Once the petitioner invoked that remedy, the right to refund had to be exercised subject to the conditions and limitation attached to it. The plea based on Article 265 of the Constitution of India did not displace the statutory requirement, and the claim could not be sustained independently of the refund provision. As the applications were filed out of time, the authorities were justified in rejecting them.

Conclusion: The claim for refund was held to be barred by limitation under the statute and was rejected.

---