LexMADRAS RUBBER FACTORY LTD. versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c 864 MADRAS RUBBER FACTORY LTD. v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. December 3rd, 1975 (K. K. MATHEW, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.J Customs Act-Section 270)-Limitation for refund of claims. "V. P. Latex" imported by the appellants 'was treated as falling under item 87 of the Indian Tariff Act 1934, the custom Authorities and custom duty was charged, in addition to a countervailing duty under item 15A of the Central Excise Tariff, in accordance with the Central Salt & Excise Act 1944. The appellants contending that V.P. Latex is an item of raw-rubber covered only by item 39 of the Indian Tariff Act 1934 preferred refund-claim under section 27 (1) of the customs Act before the Assistant Collector, which wa~ dismissed on the ground of limitation. The appeal under section 128(1)(b) and the Revision failed. Dismissing the appeals, by special leave the Court HELD : In the instant case, there was nothing to show that duly was paid under protest, general or specific and therefore, the claim wa9 not within the D period of limitation. The view taken by the authorities on the question of limita- tion was correct. [867-DE] 01111/op llldia Ltd., etc. v. Union of India, [1976] (2) S.C.R., P. 98 referred to. CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1565- 1569/73. E Appeals by Special Leave from the Orders Nos. 4844-4848 of 1972 clated 25th November 1972 of the Central Govt., Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India. D. V. Patel and K. R. Nambiyar for the Appellant. G. L. Sanghi and Girish Chander for the Respondents. F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G H UNTWALIA, J. The appellant company in these appeals by special leave is a manufacturer of rubber tyres and tubes. It imports several raw-materials including Pyratex Vinyl Pyridine Latex used in the manu- facture of rubber tyres and tubes. The Customs authorities of the Government of India have been charging custom duty on V. P. Latex under the residuary item 87 of the Indin Tariff Act, 1934 instead of ICT 39-an item meant for charging duty on raw rubber. The custom duty charged under. item 87 is much more than the one chargeable under item 39. A countervailing duty under item 15-A of the Central Excise Tariff in accordance with the Central Salt and Excis~ Act, 1944 is also charged if the article imported is not treated as raw-mbber. On five consignments of V. P. Latex imported by the appellant in the year 1968 custom duty was charged under item 87 by the Appraiser pursu~ ant to his order of assessment. Since he was an officer lower in rank than the Assistant Collector of Customs the appellant filed five applica- tions before the Assistant Collector under section 27(1) of the Customs ' \ I y-, ' } - J \ ) MADRAS RUBBER FACTORY v. UNION (Untwalia, !.) 865 Act, 1962-hereinafter referred to as the Act, for refund of the excess amount of duty charged. In other words, the appellant took the stand that if a custom duty would have been charged on V. P. Latex under item 39 then the amount would have been less to the extent of Rs. 3,74,879.49 on the five consignments in question. It, therefore, claimed the refund of the said amount, the details of which are as follows : Bill No. and date Date of Delay Amount claim for refund 1. D. No. 1644 dated 8-4-69 3t months 50,305 ·53 24-6-1968 2. D. No. 1024 dated 27-6-69 3 months 60,339 ·97 18-9-1968 3. D. No. 1132 dated 8-4-69 2 months 1,61,615 ·10 21-8-1968 ,~ 4. D. No. 1931 dated 10-4-69 1 month 50,512 ·71 23-7-1968 5. D. No. 68 dated 10-4-69 4 months 52,106 ·18 1-6-1968 3,74,879 ·49 Under section 27 (1) of the Act the application for refund had to be made before the expiry of six months from the date of payment of dMty, the date of payment being the date of the biUin each case. Thus there was a delay varying between 1 month to 4 months in the filing of each of the applications for refund. The Assistant Collector of Cus- toms dismissed the applications on the ground that they were filed out - of time. The appeals to the Appellate ·collector of Customs filed under section 128 ( 1) (b) of the Act failed. The appellant took the matter in revision to the Central Government under section 131. The revisions were dismissed by the Central Government by their order dated Nov- ember 29, 1972 stating therein: "The Govt. of India have carefully considered the reasons advanced by the petitioners for their failure to prefer the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.