RUBY MILLS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the order dated May 27, 1982 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Bombay, rejecting the application of refund of duty paid by the petitioners. The facts giving rise to the passing of this order are as follows.

(2.) The petitioners imported Lucop Step and Repeat Machine and the Bill of Entry was filed on November 29, 1980. The Customs authorities assessed the goods as falling under Tariff Item No. 90.10 as stated by the petitioners and the duty was recovered. Subsequently, the petitioners become aware in June 1981 that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) has decided a matter on March 28, 1981 holding that the machine, viz. Lucop Step and Repeat Machine, is liable to be assessed under Tariff Item No. 84.35. The duty payable under tariff Item No. 90.10 was 100%, while under Tariff Item No. 84.35 was 40%. The petitioners realized, after becoming aware of the judgment delivered by the Collector of Customs (Appeal), that excessive duty was paid by them on November 29, 1980.

(3.) The petitioner thereupon preferred refund application before the Assistant Collector of Customs on July 1, 1981. The refund was sought for an amount of Rs. 2,67,724.23. The application for refund was rejected by the Assistant Collector holding that it was barred by limitation as prescribed under section 27 of the Customs Act. On merits, the Assistant Collector merely observed that the assessment order holding that the machine was liable to duty under tariff Item No. 90.10 was correct and this order of the Assistant Collector is under challenge.