AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bharucha, J.—By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the orders dated June 29, 1982 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Refund Department, Bombay, rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for refund of excess duty paid on the ground that the applications were barred u/s 27(1) of the Customs Act. The question as to under what tariff item the goods imported by the petitioners fall is concluded by the decision dated December 31, 1985 of Mr. Justice Kurdukar in Writ Petition No. 1802 of 1982. In view of that decision, there is no dispute that the petitioners are entitled to refund. The claim is rejected only on the ground that it was lodged beyond the period prescribed u/s 27(1) of the Customs Act.
Mr. Rana, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that in view of several decisions of this Court, it is now well settled that the refund of duty recovered without any authority of law cannot be declined on the ground of limitation u/s 27(1) of the Customs Act. Mr. Rege, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, did not dispute that position and it is clear that the impugned order dismissing the refund application on the ground of limitation cannot be sustained. It is necessary for the Assistant Collector to calculate the amount of refund payable to the petitioners and pay the same within al period of three months from today.
Accordingly, rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a). The respondents are directed to calculate the amount of refund due to the petitioners and refund the same within a period of three months from today. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.