MADRAS RUBBER FACTORY LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant company in these appeals by special leave is a manufacturer of rubber tyres and tubes. It imports several raw-materials including Pyratex Vinyl Pyridine Latex use in the manufacture of rubber tyres and tubes. THE Customs authorities of the Government of India have been charging custom duty on V. P. Latex under the residuary item 87 of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 instead of ICT 39 - an item meant for charging duty on raw-rubber. THE custom duty charged under item 87 is much more than the one chargeable under item 39. A countervailing duty under item 15-A of the Central Excise Tariff in accordance with the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is also charged if the article imported is not treated as raw rubber. On five consignments of V. P. Latex imported by the appellant in the year 1968 custom duty was charged under item 87 by the Appraiser pursuant to his order of assessment. Since he was an officer lower in rank than the Assistant Collector of Customs the appellant filed five applications before the Assistant Collector under Section 27 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962 - hereinafter referred to as the Act, for refund of the excess amount of duty charged. In other words, the appellant took the stand that if a custom duty would have been charged on V. P. Latex under item 39 then the amount would have been less to the extent of Rupees 3,74,879.49 on the five consignments in question. It, therefore, claimed the refund of the said amount, the details of which are as follows : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_255_2_1976Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) UNDER Section 27 (1) of the Act the appellant for refund had to be made before the expiry of six months from the date of payment of duty, the date of payment being the date of the bill in each case. Thus there was a delay varying between 1 month to 4 months in the filing of each of the applications for refund. The Assistant Collector of Customs dismissed the applications on the ground that they were filed out of time. The appeals to the Appellate Collector of Customs filed under Section 128 (1) (b) of the Act failed. The appellant took the matter in revision to the Central Government under Sec. 131. The revisions were dismissed by the Central Government by their order dated November 29, 1972 stating therein:

(3.) SECTION 27 reads as follows :