PODDAR PIGMENTS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question arising for consideration in this case is whether the limitation provisions under Section 27 of the Customs Act are applicable to a claim for refund of interest paid under Section 61(2) of the Act.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of this case are : The raw material imported by the appellants were in -bonded/warehoused on 18 -3 -99 and ex -bonded/cleared out of warehouse for home consumption on 10 -3 -2000. During the period, the interest -free period of warehousing under Section 61 of the Customs Act was one year. As the goods had not remained in warehouse beyond this period of one year, the appellants filed a claim for refund of the amount of interest which they had paid in terms of Section 61(2) at the instance of the department. This refund claim was filed on 28 -7 -2000 and the same was rejected as time -barred by both the original and first appellate authorities. Hence this appeal.

(3.) The Counsel for the appellants submits that any interest required to be paid under Section 61(2) of the Customs Act is altogether different from the interest payable on duty of customs under Section 28AA or Section 28AB of the Act. His argument is that the duty of customs referred to under Section 61(2) is only in the nature of a measure of interest leviable for the period beyond the prescribed interest -free period of warehousing. The Counsel has, in this connection, relied on the decision of this Bench in Sunil Synchem Ltd. ] Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur [2003 (157) E.L.T. 58]. Counsel submits that, undisputedly, no interest was leviable in respect of the subject goods which were cleared out of warehouse within one year from the date of warehousing. The interest paid in respect of the goods is, therefore, refundable. The claim for such refund cannot be rejected as time -barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, which, according to Counsel, was not applicable at all.