Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Collector Of Customs vs Decorative Laminates (India) Private ... on 25 April, 1986
Equivalent citations: 1986(26)ELT399(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER S. Kalyanam, Member (J)
1. This appeal is filed by the Collector of Customs, Bangalore and is directed against the Order of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras, dated 20-12-1985 finding the refund, claim of the respondent as not barred by limitation in terms of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.
2. The respondent herein filed a claim of refund addressed to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Mysore in respect of duty paid on 14-3-83 and filed the same in the Office of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-C, Mysore on 12-9-83. The refund claim of the respondent was forwarded by the Superintendent to the Assistant Collector of Customs & Central Excise, I.D.O., Mysore where it was received on 23-9-1983. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim on grounds of limitation under Section 27 (1) of the Act as against which the appellant preferred by the respondent was allowed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras, under the impugned order against which the Collector of Customs, Bangalore has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal.
3. 'The short question that arises for consideration in the present case is whether a refund claim addressed to the Assistant Collector and preferred within time but handed over to the Superintendent who received the same but transmitted it to the Office of the Assistant Collector after the expiry of the period of limitation could be said to be an application for refund within time in terms of Section 27 of the Act.
4. The respondent has contended that the refund application was entertained by the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise, Range 'C' Mysore on 12-9-1983 and inasmuch as the same was addressed to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, and preferred within the period of limitation, the delay caused by the Superintendent in forwarding the same to the Assistant Collector should not jeopardise the respondent's right under law to claim refund on the grounds of limitation.
5. The learned Departmental Representative, to a question from me confirmed that the office of the Superintendent and the Office of the Assistant Collector in the instant case are housed in one and the same building. The question about the validity of refund claim such as the one in the present case vis-a-vis the period of limitation under Section 27 of the Act is no longer res integra and is covered by authorities of the Bench. In the case, of Shri Ambica Khandsari Udyog, Saharanpur v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut reported in 1985 (21) ELT 281 (Tribunal) it has been held that when the refund application is addressed to the Assistant Collector and has been presented to the jurisdictional range Superintendent who entertained the same and passed it on to the Office of the Assistant Collector, it would, tantamount to making application to the Assistant Collector within time. The ratio in the ruling of the Special Bench in the case of Peria Karamalai Tea and Produce Co. Ltd., Coimbatore v. Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore, reported in 1986 (23) ELT 174 (Tribunal) would also apply to the facts of this case. I respectfully adopt the ratio decidendi in the two rulings referred to above and held that the impugned order appealed against is sustainable in law. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. So far as the cross objection is concerned, the same is mis-conceived in law since the respondent does not claim to be aggrieved by the impugned order. I should think that the respondent has chosen to prefer this cross objection by way of a counter to the appeal. The cross objection in the circumstances, is dismissed.