TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (3) TMI 155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chemical substances in March, 1986, which were charged to additional duty of Customs under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, corresponding to the Central Excise duty leviable under item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. After clearance of the goods, the appellants filed claims for refund of the additional duty of Customs paid on the consignments. These claims were rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that during the material period there was no exemption notification in force in respect of the said chemicals. On the enactment of The Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986 (Act No. 45 of 1986) - hereinafter referred to, for brevity's sake, as Act No. 45 of 1986 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h form the subject-matter of the present appeals were imported during this interregnum. 4. The next significant even, was the enactment of Act No. 45 of 1986 on 8-9-1986. This Act provided for giving retrospective effect to certain notifications relating to exemption from Excise duties. Sub-sections (1), (2) and (4) of Section 2 of the Act which are relevant for the present purpose are reproduced below :- "(1) Every notification issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) on or after the 3rd day of March, 1986, but before the 8th day of August, 1986, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, for the purpose of - (a) maintaining the effec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pirty of six months from the commencement of this Act." 5. It was the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that in the light of the Madras High Court Judgment in the case of M.R.F. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others - 1987 (32) E.L.T. 465 (Mad.) and the Tribunal's decision in Collector of Customs, Madras v. Carborandum Universal - 1988 (34) E.L.T. 300 (Tri.) = 1988 (17) ECR 329, the exemption available in respect of Central Excise duty would be available in respect of the levy of additional duty of Customs under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The purpose of Act No. 45 of 1986 was to give retrospective effect to exemption notifications relating to Central Excise duties so as to cover the interregnum from 1-3-1986 to 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd. We specifically enquired from both sides whether there was any judgment of a High Court or the Supreme Court or a decision of this Tribunal in respect of the issues in the present appeal. Both sides said that they were not aware of any such decision. 9. It is now well settled that a notification issued under Central Excise Rule 8(1) exempting indigenously manufactured goods from payment of excise duty, wholly or partially, does have the effect, and serves the purpose, of exempting like goods imported into India from payment of additional duty of customs. This is the ratio of the judgment of the Madras High Court and the decision of this Tribunal cited by the counsel for the appellants. Act No. 45 of 1986 has the effect, in so far as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y to the duty chargeable under this section as they apply in relation to the duties leviable under that Act." So, in the matter of refunds, we have to turn to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 27(1) of the Customs Act provides for a limitation of six months from the date of payment of duty for filing claims for refund of the duty paid. The claims in the present cases are for refund of additional duty of Customs and not of duties of Excise. Therefore, the provisions of the Customs Act will apply and not the specific provision contained in Act No. 45 of 1986. This result may be unfortunate and perhaps not even intended but having regard to the scheme of the Customs Tariff Act read with the provisions of the Customs Act, we a....