KIRLOSKAR PNEUMATIC CO LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the manufacturers of refrigerating and air-conditioning machinery and appliance. Between May, 1979 and November 1980, the petitioners imported various consignments of components parts of refrigeration and air-conditioning compressors. It is the case of the petitioners that the items imported by them were not covered by Notification No. 80/62 issued under Item No. 29A(3) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, though falling under Item No. 29A and hence no additional duty under Section 3A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was leviable on the goods either under Item No. 29A or under Item No. 68. This appears to be an admitted position. However, without realising this, the petitioners had paid duty. When they realised their mistake, they made an application for refund on July 1, 1980. The Assistant Collector of Customs by his order dated March 19, 1981 rejected this application for refund mainly on the ground that the application was preferred after the expiry of six months of time limit stipulated under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Similarly, the Assistant Collector passed two other orders, one on April 6, 1981 and another on April 20, 1981, rejecting similar applications for refund on the same ground. The petitioners filed appeals against these orders. The Appellate Collector of Customs confirmed the orders passed by the Assistant Collector on the same ground. As against these orders, the petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the said orders. They also stated that they have also paid similar duties in respect of various other consignments in respect of which the petitioners are entitled to refund. The particulars of the same additional duties claimed in respect of which the petitioners had not filed any stated that applications are given in Ex. P. In the petition, the petitioners have stated that when they made these applications it was done purely as test cases and no such applications were made in respect of the other consignments imported between May 1979 to February 1981 and they made no other application in respect of the items on which additional duty was illegally collected by the respondents.

(2.) It is not necessary for me to go into the details inasmuch it is a clear case that the duty has been collected without the authority of law and by mistake. The respondents are bound to refund the amounts as claimed by the petitioners.

(3.) However, as regards the items set out in Ex. P, Mr. Rege appearing for the respondents, submitted that the petitioners had not preferred any applications and, therefore, no relief can be granted in respect of those items. He also submitted that the respondents are unable to verify whether the particulars as set out in Ex. P. are correct or not.