APAR PVT. LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE ten appeals captioned above are directed against one order in appeal dated 20.4.1977 whereby the Appellate Collector of Customs Bombay disposed often orders passed by the Assistant Collector all on one date, namely 21.10.1976, on different refund applications, filed by the appellant company.

(2.) THE refund applications were made by the appellant company, in relation to duties paid on certain imports, in the year 1971 -72, but refund was applied, though by means of separate applications, in all cases on 16.10.1976. Assistant Collector of Customs rejected those applications without adverting to the merits, on the ground of time -bar, by virtue of the provisions of 27(1) of the Customs Act 1962. The Appellate Collector of Customs confirmed this order of the Assistant Collector on the appeals filed before him after giving the appellants personal hearing, after taking note of their arguments that the duties levied on them which were the subject matter of these refund applications, were not payable at the time of imports, and as such were illegal collection, and that provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act would apply only in the case of the duty legally leviable but held that since the amounts, for which the appellants had claimed refund in all the cases, were in respect of the duty of customs recovered under Customs Act, 1962, there was no question of illegality involved in the recovery thereof, and as Section 27(1) of the Act provided six months limitation which period had to be computed from the date of payment of duty, that period had strictly to apply, and that party's contention that the duty was outside the scope of Customs Act, and as such generally Law of Limitation was to apply, was not tenable. He, further, observed that Limitation Act applied to applications made to courts, and not to proceedings before authorities under the Customs Act. He thus held that Assistant Collector was right in rejecting the applications as barred by time. The appeals were thus dismissed. He disposed of their plea that Assistant Collector had not accorded personal hearing by observing that no such prayer had been made in the refund applications, and as such no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the appellants.

(3.) THE appellants went in revision to the Central Government, reiterating the same pleas, and contending that the order passed by the Appellate Collector in dismissing their appeals was erroneous, illegal and contrary to the provisions of law, and he erred in holding that the duty was recovered under the Customs Act. They further pleaded that the Appellate Collector's views that the specific period of limitation, as provided by the Customs Act, would apply and not the general law of limitation, was erroneous and that the orders suffered from lack of application of mind on the part of the Appellate Collector, and that he erred in holding that the Limitation Act applied only to applications to courts. On the facts and circumstances of their case, they urged that only General Law of Limitation would apply, and that the Assistant Collector's orders were vitiated as he had disposed of their applications without giving any personal hearing They further pleaded that the Appellate Collector ought to have taken into consideration their plea that the mistake in the payment of duty had been discovered by the appellants only after the judgment of the Bombay High Court, given in February, 1975 in Sylvania and Laxman case, and also that of M/s Synthetics and Chemicals, and consequently starting point of limitation was the time when the mistake came to the notice of the appellants, and being payments made under mistake, the general law of limitation of three years would apply, and that too would start from date of discovery of mistake, which was in the month of February, 1975, and as the refund applications were made in October, 1976, those could not have been rejected, as barred by time, by reference to Section 27(1) of the Customs Act.