HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are manufacturers of Asbestos sheets and other excisable goods. In this appeal, they are aggrieved by rejection, by the lower authorities, of a refund claim for a total amount of Rs. 3,39,586/ -. They had imported raw Asbestos and cleared the same under 8 Bills of Entry dated 3 to 8 -6 -1598, paying, inter alia, Special Additional Duty @ 8% of the value of the goods under the proviso to Section 3A of the Customs Tariff Act. Section 3A ibid was inserted in the Tariff Act by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 and relevant sub -section [Sub -section (1)] reads as under : -

(2.) HEARD both sides. Ld. Consultant for the appellants refers to Notification No. 27/97 -Cus. (N.T.), dated 7 -7 -97 (as amended) issued by the Central Government under Section 4(1) of the Customs Act appointing (with specified territorial jurisdiction) Commissioners, Joint Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners/Dy. Commissioners of Customs, and submits that the Assistant Commissioners of Customs at New Delhi, Tughlakabad and Faridabad had concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the refund claim at the material time as they were all a part of the Commissionerate of Delhi. The Consultant also relies on a letter [No. VIII (40) 28/Cus./Bond/93/154, dated 12 -5 -94] issued by Assistant Collector of Customs (Faridabad) in 1994, which had stated that the competent authority to sanction refund claims was the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. He also relies on case law. In all the cases cited by him, refund claims were submitted to the jurisdic -tional Range Officer and it was held that such claims should be treated to have been submitted to the respective Assistant Collectors/Assistant Commissioners superior to the Range Officers. Some of these decisions of the Tribunal have been affirmed by the Supreme Court. I have heard ld. DR also, who reiterates the findings contained in the orders of the original and first appellate authorities.

(3.) I have examined the submissions. The refund claim in question is one which was filed under Section 27 of the Customs Act and hence, the limitation provisions of the said section are applicable to the claim. The short question to be considered is whether the refund claim is hit by limitation or not. The lower authorities have reckoned 22 -12 -98 (date of filing of refund claim with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Faridabad for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. If this reckoning is correct, the refund claim is time -barred as it was filed beyond six months from the date of payment of duty. The case of the appellants is that the date of filing of the refund claim with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, New Custom House, New Delhi has to be reckoned for the purpose of computing the period of six months under Section 27 of the Customs Act. If this plea is acceptable, the refund claim will not be hit by the bar of limitation under Section 27. Ld. Consultant has pointed out, with reference to Notification No. 27/97 -Cus. (N.T.), that all the Assistant Commissioners of Customs working under the control of the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi were competent to entertain the refund claim. However, ld. DR has referred to the Customs Refund Application (Form) Regulations, 1995, whereunder an application for refund was to be submitted to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs having jurisdiction over the Customs Port, Customs Airport, Land Customs Station or the Warehouse where the duty of Customs was paid. It has been submitted that, under these regulations, it was the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Faridabad who alone was competent to entertain the refund claim in question. At this stage, ld. Consultant has submitted that none of the Assistant Commissioners, whether at Delhi or at Tughlakabad, had indicated to the appellants at any time regarding any such requirement. The format used by the party for filing the refund claim is undisputedly Form No. 102 under Regulation No. 2 of the Customs Refund Application (Form) Regulations 1995. Regulation No. 2 required that any such claim should be submitted to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs having jurisdiction over the Port/Airport/Land Customs Station/Warehouse where the duty was paid. According to this requirement, the claim could only have been submitted to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Faridabad. The refund claim in Form No. 102 under Regulation No. 2 pre -supposes awareness of the claimant that the claim ought to be filed with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs at ICD, Faridabad. The cause of action for refund had arisen as early as on 13 -6 -98, when Notification No. 35/98 -Cus. was issued limiting the applicable rate of Special Additional Duty of Customs to 4% ad valorem. There is no valid explanation in this case for the delay between 13 -6 -98 and 2 -12 -98. Had they acted with a little diligence, the refund claim would have been submitted in time to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs at Faridabad in terms of Regulation No. 2. The appellants have to suffer on account of their own negligence and laches. The refund claim submitted to the competent authority on 22 -12 -98 is clearly beyond the period of six months from the date of payment of duty. The authorities below have rightly rejected it as time barred. The appeal is dismissed.