Customs refund limitation prevails: rectification powers cannot bypass the six-month bar under Section 27.

A customs refund claim filed after the six-month period under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was barred by limitation, even though the excess duty collection was said to arise from an apparent assessment or arithmetical error. The statutory refund limitation could not be ignored on that basis, and the claim was rightly rejected. The Tribunal's rectification power under Section 129B(2) was confined to mistakes apparent from the record in its own order and could not be used to override Section 27 or create a refund remedy outside the limitation period. The analogy to rectification provisions in income-tax and civil procedure law was rejected as inapposite.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a refund claim filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was barred by limitation. (ii) Whether the Tribunal could treat the excess duty collection as an arithmetical mistake and rectify it under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether a refund claim filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The claim was filed after the expiry of six months from the date of payment of duty. The statutory language of Section 27 was treated as governing refund claims in such cases, and the earlier Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions relied upon confirmed that the prescribed period could not be ignored merely because the excess collection arose from an apparent mistake in assessment or arithmetical calculation.

Conclusion: The refund claim was barred by limitation and was rightly rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal could treat the excess duty collection as an arithmetical mistake and rectify it under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The power under Section 129B(2) was confined to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record in the Tribunal's own order. That rectification power was distinct from a refund claim under Section 27 and could not be used to override the statutory limitation governing refund applications. The analogy of Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rejected as inapposite.

Conclusion: Section 129B(2) did not provide a basis to bypass Section 27 or grant the refund.

Final Conclusion: The statutory limitation for customs refund claims prevailed, and the Tribunal declined to extend rectification powers so as to defeat that limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim under the Customs Act must comply with the limitation prescribed by Section 27(1), and the Tribunal's rectification power under Section 129B(2) cannot be invoked to circumvent that limitation.

---