GEEP FLASHLIGHT INDUSTRIES LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 983 · Decided: 28-10-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

f 
983. 
GEEP FLASHLIGHT INDUSTRIES LTD. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
October 28, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, c. J., M. H. BEG AND P. N. SHINGHAL,. H.]' 
Limi1a1io11-Period of /imitation in respect o/ suo motu revision by Cemral 
Governme11t to a111111/ or modify any order of erroneous refund of duty, when 
begi11s-C11s:e111s Act, 1962 Ss. 28, 131(1)(3)(5) scope of. 
• 
The appellant succeeded before the revisional authority and obtained· the 
orders of refund of duty levied and collected on the consignment of ten metric 
tonnes Q._f llfanganese dioxide. 
As no action was taken, the appellant gave a 
B 
notice cl'! October 3, 1974 u/s 80 C.P.C. for institutio111 of a suit for recovery of 
C' 
refund. 
On February 10, 1975 the respondent gave a notice u/s 131(3) of the 
Customs Act 1962 to (he appellant for suo motu revision of the order of the 
refund. 
The Writ Petition filed in the Delhi Hig~ Court, impeaching the said 
order w~s dismissed directing the appellant to raise all objections including those 
raised in the Writ Petition before the Central Government. 
Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court 
Held : t 1) S. 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 speaks of three kinds of errors in 
I> 
regard to duties. 
One is non-levy, the second is short levy, and the third' is 
. 
erroneous refund. 
Levy i~ linked to assessment. In the process of assessment 
two kinds of errors may occur. 
One is non levy and the other is short levy. 
The expres,ion "erroneously refunded" means refunded by means of an order 
which is erroneously made. [986 F-G] 
(2) S. 131 (5) of the Customs Ac~ does not speak of any limitatiOJl' iir 
regard to revision b}" the Central Government of its own motion t<J. annul or 
modify any order of erroneous, refund of duty. 
The provisions contained 
in 
K 
Section 131(5) with regard to non .. Jevy or short levy cannot be equated 
with 
erroneous refund in as much as the three categories of errors in the levy are 
dealt with in s. 28. [987 D-E] 
(3) Notice u/s 28 of the Customs Act speaks of demand for money to pay 
back and the notice is required to be given within six months frorn the relevant 
date. In 1he case of erroneous refund, 
it would be six months from the date 
of actual refund. Jf nol refund has in fact been made limitation cannot be said 
to arise inasmuch as the' relevant date u/s 28: in the case of erroneous refund 
F 
speaks of the date of refund. In the instant case the impugned order dated 20, 
April 1972 grnnted refund. 
Grant of refund is not actual refund. [986 G-H. 
987 Al 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1830 of 1975. 
Apveal by S~ecial Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
10-9-75 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 475/75. 
G 
'', 
Soli Sornbjee, Ravinder Narain, Talat Ansari and Shri Narain, 
for the Appellants. 
V. P. Raman, Addi. Sol. Genl. for India, S. K. Mehta and Girish 
Chandrn, for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAY, C. J.-This appeal is by special leave from the judgment 
dated 10 September 1975 of the Delhi High Court. 
H 
984 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The app_ellant is a manufacturer of dry battery cells. In October 
1969 the appellant received a consignment of ten 
metric tons of 
manganese dioxide. 
The Assistant Collector levied duty on the con-
signment under Tariff Item 28. 
The appellant preferred an appeal. 
The Appellate Collector confirmed the order of the As$istant Collec-
tor. 
The appellant thereafter made an application to the Revisional 
Authority. 
The Revisional Authority held that the goods should be 
\. 
iB 
assessed under Tariff Item 26 and ordered refund of duty. 
The appellant asked for refund and sent reminders to Customs 
Authorities for refund. 
• 
On 3 October 1974 the appellant gave a notice under section 80 
of the Civil Procedure Code for institution of a suit for recovery of 
:c 
refund. 
• 
D 
E 
G 
H 
On 10 February 197 5 a notice under Section 131 ( 3) of the Cus-
r 
/toms Act 1962 referred to as the Act was given to the appellant for 
revision of the order of refund. 
The appellant impeached the aforesaid notice dated 10 February 
1975. The notice inter alia stated that "since the goods were 
pro-
cessed ore, not meant for extraction of metallic manganese they ceased 
to qualify as an 'ore' within the normally accepted sense of the term 
as in item 26 Indian Customs Tariff. The notice thereafter said "It, 
therefore, appears to the Government that the appellate
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.