UNION OF INDIA & ORS versus KIRLOSKAR PNEUMATIC CO. LTD.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 326 · Decided: 06-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, S.C. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS 
v. 
KIRLOSKAR PNEUMATIC CO. LTD. 
MAY 6, 1996 
B 
[B.P. JEEVEN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.J 
Customs Act, 1962 : 
S. 27-Reftmd of duty-Pe1iod of Limitation-Imponer filing appifra-
C 
lion claiming refund of dut1~-In the >Viii petition filed by impmter High Cowt 
directing the Custun1s Autnu1ities nut tu reject the refund application un the 
ground of lbnitation-Hcid, custvnzs authu1ities, who are creatures of the Act, 
nut be directed to ignore or act cuntra1y to s. 27-0rdcr of High C'oiut set 
aside and 11u1tter reniitted tu it for di.~pusal in accordance with law. 
D 
Constitution of lndia, 1950: 
A1tic/e 226/227-Higli Cowt directing Customs autho1ities not to reject 
on ground of lin1itation, the application for rejiuzd of duty filed by i111-
P<Nter-Held, it is not pennissible for the High c.:ozat to direct the autho1ities 
under the Custonzs Act to act contra1)1 to statutory provisions-Poiver con-
E feired by A1tic/e 226/227 is designed to effectuate the law, to enforce the Rule 
of Law and to ensure that several auth01ities and organs of State act in 
accordance Jvith la~It cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act 
contrmy to /af>!. 
F 
Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Mis. Doaba Co-operative 
G 
Sugar Mills Ltd., Ja/andhm; (1988) 37 E.L.T. 478 (SCJ) and Miles India Ltd. 
v. Assistant Collector of Customs, (1987) 30 E.L.T. 641 S.C., relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7722 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.6.1995 of the Bombay High 
Court in W.P. No. 396 of 1987. 
N.K. Bajpai, S.D. Sharma and V.K. Verma for the Appellants. 
H 
Harshad Hidayatullah, Shri Narain, Sandeep Narain and Ms. S.S. 
326 
U.0.1. v. KIRLOSKAR PNEUMATIC CO. LTD. 
327 
Kher for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. Heard the Counsel for the parties. 
This appeal is directed against, what is called, "Minutes of the order" 
made by the Bombay High Court on 23rd June, 1995. The order· reads : 
"l. The Petitioners will file an application for refund, in respect of 
the consignmepts imported as referred to in this Petition, in the 
prescribed form as per the amended section 27 of the Customs 
Act, 1962, within 2 weeks from today. 
2. The_ Respondents will dispose of the aforesaid Refund Claim, 
an melits, within 10 weeks from the filing of the same. 
A 
B 
c 
3. The Respondents shall not reject the refund application on the D 
ground that it is time barred. 
4. The Petition is disposed of accordingly. 
5. No order as to costs.'
1 
The Revenue is questioning the validity and correctness of clause (3) 
of the said order whereby the High Court has directed the authorities 
under the Customs Act not to reject the respondent's application for 
refund on the ground that it is time barred and to dispose it of on merits. 
E 
The respondent imported certain goods between Ferbuary 1983 and F 
July 1985. There was a dispute between the respondent and the Customs 
Authorities with respect to the clussificatioh of goods. The duty as 
demanded by the authorities was paid by the respondent and the goods 
cleared. Thereafter, the respondent filed the refund application. The ap-
pellant says that the respondent preferred an appeal which was rejected by 
the Appellate Authority and that instead of filing the further appeal, the G 
respondent approached the Bombay High Court. The respondent disputes 
this statement. He says that he did not file any appeal but approached the 
High Court straight away. Be that as it may. The prayer in the writ petition 
was to issue an appropriate writ, order and direction to the Customs 
Authorities to refund the excess customs duty levied upon the goods H 
328 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
imported by the respondent and collected from it. The respondent also 
claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the said order. The writ 
petition was filed in the year 1987. 
B 
c 
The appellants state that they contested the writ petition but the 
High Court passed the impuned 'minutes of the order'. Indeed Mr. 
Hidayatullah, learned counsel for the respondent states that the order 
impugned herein is the standard order which is usually passed by the 
Bombay High Court in all such matters. 
In this appeal we are not concerned either with the maintainability 
of the writ petition or its merits. The only contention raised and which we 
are considering is whether the direction given by the Hig
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.