Customs refund claims barred by limitation cannot usually be revived through writ jurisdiction absent payment under protest.

Refund claims under the Customs Act were held time-barred where they were filed after six months from payment of duty and the duty was not paid under protest. The proviso to Section 27(1) did not apply merely because an earlier proceeding involving other consignments was pending, as that did not amount to protest for the later payments. The Court also noted that Article 226 discretion is guided by settled principles and will not ordinarily be used to defeat a statutory limitation when the claimant has lost the refund right under the Act. No writ direction for refund was therefore warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the claim for refund of customs duty was barred by limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the High Court should nonetheless direct refund in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The refund claims for the consignments in question were made after the expiry of six months from payment of duty. The proviso to Section 27(1) was held inapplicable because the duty had not been paid under protest. The fact that an earlier proceeding concerning other consignments was pending did not amount to a protest for the later payments. The Court further held that although Article 226 confers wide discretion, that discretion is guided by settled principles and need not be exercised to override a statutory bar where the claimant, by its own conduct, has lost the right to refund under the Act.

Conclusion: The refund claim was barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, and no writ direction for refund was warranted; the decision was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The statutory limitation defeated the refund claim, and the Court declined to grant discretionary relief in writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a refund claim under the Customs Act is time-barred and the duty was not paid under protest, the High Court will not ordinarily use Article 226 to bypass the statutory limitation and grant refund.

---