https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44788 The SC dismissed the appeal, holding the refund applications were time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act. Section 27's six-month limitation is mandatory, leaving authorities no discretion to grant refunds after the prescribed period. The Court rejected the appellant's reliance on Section 72 of the Contract Act and prior central excise decisions, distinguishing them from the specific statutory limitation in Section 27. Consequently the authorities were correctly obliged to reject the refund claims. en-us Thu, 17 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Oct 2025 10:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44788 The SC dismissed the appeal, holding the refund applications were time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act. Section 27's six-month limitation is mandatory, leaving authorities no discretion to grant refunds after the prescribed period. The Court rejected the appellant's reliance on Section 72 of the Contract Act and prior central excise decisions, distinguishing them from the specific statutory limitation in Section 27. Consequently the authorities were correctly obliged to reject the refund claims. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 17 Feb 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44788