Writ relief for unlawful customs duty collection was not barred by limitation, with remand limited to refund quantification.

Where customs duty is collected without authority of law, limitation applicable to a departmental refund claim does not bar relief in writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and the refund entitlement was upheld. The court also declined reconsideration of the amended refund provisions on the facts, but remitted the matter only for ministerial computation of the exact refundable amount, with a direction to effect refund within the stipulated time. The impugned orders were set aside and the petitioners' right to refund was confirmed, subject only to quantification.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether refund of customs duty recovered without authority of law could be declined on the ground of limitation while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226; (ii) whether the matter should be remitted only for ascertainment of the exact refund amount.

Issue (i): whether refund of customs duty recovered without authority of law could be declined on the ground of limitation while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Analysis: The levy under the relevant tariff item was found to be erroneous and the duty payable was only at the lower rate claimed. The refusal of refund rested solely on limitation under the Customs Act, but it was held that where duty is recovered without authority of law, the limitation applicable to the departmental refund claim does not bar relief in writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The limitation objection did not defeat the petitioners' claim for refund and the relief was held to be available in their favour.

Issue (ii): whether the matter should be remitted only for ascertainment of the exact refund amount.

Analysis: The Court declined to permit reconsideration of the amended refund provisions on the facts of the case, but found it necessary to send the matter back for the limited purpose of calculating the precise amount refundable.

Conclusion: The proceedings were remitted solely for computation of the refund amount, with a direction to make the refund within the specified time.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside, the petitioners' entitlement to refund was upheld, and the matter was sent back only for ministerial quantification of the refundable amount.

Ratio Decidendi: Limitation on a statutory refund claim does not bar relief in writ jurisdiction where duty has been collected without authority of law, though remand may be ordered for limited quantification of the refundable sum.

---