COMMANDANT EMBARKATION Vs. COLLR. OF CUS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two Appeals, filed by Commandant, Embarkation Headquarters, Bombay, the issue involved is whether the refund claims filed by them were hit by time limit specified in Section 27 of the Customs Act.

(2.) SHRI V.S.R. Krishna, Learned Advocate submitted in Appeal No. C/257/94 -B, the goods imported by them were assesed provisionally under the provisions of Section 18 of the Customs which is evident from the Bill of Entry No. 012398 of July 1989; that the B/E was finally assessed on 8 -3 -90 only; that the Department should have refunded the amount of duty paid in excess suo motu immediately after the finalisation of assessment; that no refund application is required to be preferred by the importer under Section 27 of the Customs Act; that this Section 27 does not come into picture at this stage, that it does so only if, even after adjustment of duty in terms of Section 18(2), the importer considers that a further amount is due to be refunded in which event he has to make a claim as enjoined in Section 27. He relied upon the decision in the case of Nagjee Purshottam and Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, - 1987 (13) ECR 351 (T). He further submitted that in view of specific provisions of Section 18 of the Customs Act and the Tribunal's decision, it was not at all necessary for the importer to make a claim application for the refund of the excess duty which has been provisionally paid; that in any case the appellant had made repeated oral as well written requests right from the year of import for the refund of the excess duty paid.

(3.) IN respect of Appeal No. C/258/94 -B2, the learned Advocate submitted that B/E was provisionally assessed and duty was paid on 26 -3 -1991; that the B/E was finally assessed on production of documents and they paid differential duty under Challan No. 4400, dated 17 -12 -1991; that as per Explanation to Section 27, one year period has to be computed from the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof; that accordingly the refund claim filed on 11 -12 -1992 is not hit by time limit.