TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (5) TMI 87
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms Act, 1962, within 2 weeks from today. The Respondents will dispose of the aforesaid Refund claim,2. on merits, within 10 weeks from the filing of the same. The Respondents shall not reject the refund application on3. the ground that it is time barred. 4.The Petition is disposed of accordingly. 5.No order as to costs." 3.The Revenue is questioning the validity and correctness of clause (3) of the said order whereby the High Court has directed the authorities under the Customs Act not to reject the respondent's application for refund on the ground that it is time barred and to dispose it of on merits. 4.The respondent imported certain goods between February, 1983 and July, 1985. There was a dispute between the respondent and the Cust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the ground that it is time barred", is valid in law. With respect we think that it is not. 7.In Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. M/s. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd., Jalandhar [A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 2052 = 1988 (37) E.L.T. 478] this Court had observed : "6. It appears that where the duty has been levied without the authority of law or without reference to any statutory authority or the specific provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder have no application, the decision will be guided by the general law and the date of limitation would be the starting point when the mistake or the error comes to light. But in making claims for refund before the departmental authority, an assessee is bound within four corners of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct, we do not think it necessary to refer to that decision. 9.Section 27 of the Customs Act provides for claims for refund of duty. The section has been substituted by a new section by Central Act 40 of 1991 (with effect from September 20, 1991). The amended Section 27 severely curtails the right to refund but for the purpose of this appeal, it is not necessary to refer to that aspect. Suffice it to say that sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 27 (both before and after amendment) provide for filing an application for amendment within a period of six months of the payment of duty except in a case where it has been paid under protest. What is relevant herein is sub-section (4) of unamended Section 27 and sub-section (3) of amended Section 27....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act to act contrary to the aforesaid statutory provision. We do not think it is, even while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution. The power conferred by Article 226/227 is designed to effectuate the law, to enforce the Rule of law and to ensure that the several authorities and organs of the State act in accordance with law. It cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act contrary to law. In particular, the Customs authorities, who are the creatures of the Customs Act, cannot be directed to ignore or act contrary to Section 27, whether before or after amendment. May be the High Court or a Civil Court is not bound by the said provisions but the authorities under the Act are. Nor can there be any question of the High Court....