Customs refund claims filed beyond the statutory limitation remained barred despite allegation of unlawful duty collection.

Refund claims for additional customs duty filed after the six-month period under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 were held not entertainable merely because the duty was alleged to have been collected without authority of law. The duty had been assessed and paid under a valid customs assessment, and even where exemption or excess payment was asserted, the remedy remained a refund claim subject to the statutory limitation. In the absence of any provision for condonation of delay, the limitation could not be relaxed. The claims were therefore barred by limitation and rejected as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund claims for additional customs duty, filed beyond the six-month period prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, could be entertained on the plea that the duty was collected without authority of law.

Analysis: The refund claims were admittedly filed after expiry of the statutory period. The duty had been assessed and paid under the customs law, and the assessment authority had jurisdiction to levy and assess the duty. Even assuming a claim of exemption or excess payment, the remedy remained a refund claim governed by the limitation under Section 27. The statutory limitation could not be relaxed or ignored in the absence of any provision enabling condonation of delay.

Conclusion: The refund claims were barred by limitation and were rightly rejected as time-barred.

---