Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
2. the appellant claimed refund of light house charges amounting to about rs. 13 lakhs, paid during the period august to october 2002, in regard to coastal run vessels. the claim was filed on 4-2-2003 before the deputy commissioner of customs, kakinada. the ground taken was that there was an exemption from light house charges in favour of coastal run vessels from 1st october, 2001. the claim was rejected by the assistant commissioner on the ground that it had been filed late (the claim for refund of excess payments is required to be made during six months from date of each payment). section 19 of the light house act 27 which relates to refund of excess payment stipulates that "no claim for refund of such excess payment shall be admissible, unless it is made within six months from the date of each payment". since the claims were made beyond the stipulated period of six months they were rejected.that order was confirmed in appeal by commissioner (appeals). the present appeal is directed against that order.3. while there is no dispute about the belated nature of the refund claim, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the customs authorities were not legally competent to decide the refund application. it is being pointed out that under section 15, light house act 1927 disputes about "whether light house dues are payable" are to be heard and determined by a presidency magistrate or the magistrate of first class having jurisdiction at the place where the dispute arises.the contention of the learned counsel is that the orders of the customs authorities are required to be set aside as being passed without jurisdiction.4. the submission of the learned sdr is that customs officer has been declared by the proper officer for receipts of light house dues.section 13 of the act empowers the proper officer to recover light house dues. the contention is that since receipt and recovery powers are with the customs officers for refund of excess payments also customs officers should be treated as proper officer. he would, therefore contend that the order has been passed correctly.5. we are in agreement with the revenue. from the scheme of collection, issue of receipt and recovery of light house dues, it is clear that for all these purposes the act recognizes customs collector as the proper officer. section 19 which refers to refund of excess payment does not specifically stipulates proper officer. however, since refund is only incidental to collection and recovery, it is to be held that proper officer for refund of excess payment under the act would also be custom collector. a contrary view would lead to a vacuum in the legal arrangements. in view of this, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the authorities were within their jurisdiction. as already noted, it is admitted that the claim has been filed beyond the time stipulated for claiming refund. therefore, the authorities were right in rejecting the same. the impugned order is, therefore, upheld.

Judgment:
2. The appellant claimed refund of light house charges amounting to about Rs. 13 lakhs, paid during the period August to October 2002, in regard to coastal run vessels. The claim was filed on 4-2-2003 before the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Kakinada. The ground taken was that there was an exemption from light house charges in favour of coastal run vessels from 1st October, 2001. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that it had been filed late (the claim for refund of excess payments is required to be made during six months from date of each payment). Section 19 of the Light House Act 27 which relates to refund of excess payment stipulates that "no claim for refund of such excess payment shall be admissible, unless it is made within six months from the date of each payment". Since the claims were made beyond the stipulated period of six months they were rejected.

That order was confirmed in appeal by Commissioner (Appeals). The present appeal is directed against that order.

3. While there is no dispute about the belated nature of the refund claim, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Customs Authorities were not legally competent to decide the refund application. It is being pointed out that under Section 15, Light House Act 1927 disputes about "whether light house dues are payable" are to be heard and determined by a Presidency Magistrate or the Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction at the place where the dispute arises.

The contention of the learned Counsel is that the orders of the Customs Authorities are required to be set aside as being passed without jurisdiction.

4. The submission of the learned SDR is that Customs officer has been declared by the Proper Officer for receipts of light house dues.

Section 13 of the Act empowers the Proper Officer to recover light house dues. The contention is that since receipt and recovery powers are with the Customs officers for refund of excess payments also Customs officers should be treated as proper officer. He would, therefore contend that the order has been passed correctly.

5. We are in agreement with the revenue. From the scheme of collection, issue of receipt and recovery of light house dues, it is clear that for all these purposes the Act recognizes Customs Collector as the proper officer. Section 19 which refers to refund of excess payment does not specifically stipulates proper officer. However, since refund is only incidental to collection and recovery, it is to be held that proper officer for refund of excess payment under the Act would also be Custom Collector. A contrary view would lead to a vacuum in the legal arrangements. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the authorities were within their jurisdiction. As already noted, it is admitted that the claim has been filed beyond the time stipulated for claiming refund. Therefore, the authorities were right in rejecting the same. The impugned order is, therefore, upheld.