RUBBER BOARD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from OIA No. 98/2003 -Cus., dated 9 -10 -2003. The appellants claim to be a recognized Research body. They filed a refund claim within a period of one year in terms of Section 27 of the Customs Act which provides for filing a refund application within one year by Government or by any educational, research or charitable institution or hospital. The authorities below have taken a view that the appellant is not carrying on any research activity like Research institutions in the nature of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and other similar organizations. The original authority rejected the refund application as time barred on the ground that Section 27(1)(a) of the Customs Act cannot be relied by the appellant as they are not a research body. The learned Counsel files a copy of the High Court judgment rendered in the case of Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax v. The Rubber Board - 1996 (2) KLT 674 wherein the Kerala High Court has accepted the fact of the appellant mainly holding research institutions and for that purpose rubber estates are maintained. He submits in the light of the High Court judgment accepting the appellant as a research institution, that they are eligible to file the refund application within one year in terms of Section 27(1)(a) of the Customs Act. He submits that there is no dispute about the eligibility of refund claim with regard to the customs duty and additional duty exemption in terms of Notification No. 84/97 -Cus., dated 11 -11 -1997 in respect of import consignment of Wood working machine and hence their claim should be accepted.

(2.) THE learned SDR submitted that even if the appellants are considered as the research institution, the matter has to go back to the original authority to consider the refund application on merits.

(3.) ON a careful consideration and on perusal of the judgment rendered by the Kerala High Court in the appellants own case, the fact of appellant being a research institution has been accepted by the High Court. The appellant in the High Court was Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and they had not disputed the appellant being a research institution. In that view of the matter, the provisions of Section 27(1)(a) of the Customs Act would apply. The appellants are entitled to file the refund application within one year. The refund application has been filed within one year and the same is not barred by time. The rejection of the refund application on time bar is not legal and proper. The appeal is allowed by remand to the original authority for considering the refund application on merits. The original authority shall dispose of the matter within four months from the receipt of this order by granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellants.