ORDER
B.B. Gujral, Vice-President
1. M/s. Embarkation Hqrs., Bombay have filed a Revision application dated 9-9-1981 on behalf of M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., which is directed against the order-in-appcal No. S. 49-49/1981 GS dated 18-6-1981, passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, wherein, he confirmed the Order-in-original No. S. 3-98/ 1981 GS dated 21-4-1981, passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay. The Assistant Collector in his order held that the refund claim made by the appellants, namely : M/s. H.A.L. Ltd., Lucknow was time barred, since it had been made after the expiry of the prescribed period of 6 months from the date of payment of duty. The duty was paid on 27-6-80 while the claim for refund was made on 28-3-1981. The question whether the refund claim was time barred or not has again been raised by the appellants in the said revision application, which has been transferred to the Tribunal and is now being considered as appeal.
2. Sq. Leader (Retd.) K..C. Tandon, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants produced a write-up dated 4th Jan., 1984 signed by the Chief Financial Controller (A) of the Appellants. He stated that M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, is a Government owned Company with an authorised share capital of Rs. 60 crores, which has recently been enhanced to Rs. 125 crores. The entire share capital is held by the President of India. The appointments in the cadres of Chairman, Managing Director and other Directors in the Company are made by the President of India. The objectives of the Company are closely laid down and supervised by the Government. Company serves as an instrument of the national policy to achieve self-reliance in the design, development and production of aircrafts and aeronautical equipments to meet the country’s changing and growing needs with special emphasis on military requirements. The goods imported by the Company are cleared by M/s. Embarkation Headquarters, Bombay, which is the premier agency of the Ministry of Defence for the purpose of clearance. Sh. Tandon, learned Advocate for the appellants also referred to a letter dated 7-4-1983, written by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay which has confirmed that the time limit applicable to the imports made by M/s. H.A.L. will be one year for the purpose of claiming refund and payment of short levied customs duty. Sh. Tandon, learned Advocate also produced several short levied demands for payment against M/s. H.A.L. made by the Assistant Collector of Customs which were in accordance with interpretation made by the said Asstt. Collector of Customs. He also produced copies of the orders issued by the Assistant Collector to this effect to show that less charge demands were made after the expiry of 6 months but within the period of one year and were actually made and confirmed by the Customs’ authorities.
3. Sh. K.V. Kunhikrishnan, learned Departmental Representative while referring to Section 27(ia) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter Act) argued that the imports in question were made by M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and not by the Government, which is only a Government owned Company and not Government. As such, imports made by it cannot be treated as imports made by the Government. In this connection, he invited attention of the Bench to a decision of the Tribunal in the case of appellants itself, as reported in 1983 E.L.T. 155 (CEGAT) and the judgment given by this Bench in the matter of Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Guntur v. Hindustan Ship Yards, Visakhapatnam in Appeal No. 1152/83-B and 1035/1983-B ; wherein, it has been held by the Tribunal, in these orders, that Public Sector Undertakings Companies which are incorporated under the Companies Act are separate entities and cannot be considered as Government.
4. Sh. Tandon, learned Advocate for the appellants made an alternative plea that if M/s. H.A.L. cannot be considered as Government, the time limit of 6 months for claiming refund, as prescribed, under Section 27(ia) be extended to one year under the inherent powers of the Tribunal.
5. To counter this prayer, the learned Departmental Representative referred to several cases decided by the Tribunal wherein, it has been held that statutory time limit cannot be extended by the Tribunal and accordingly the cases of refund demands which are not made within the prescribed statutory time limit have to be considered as time barred.
6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the parties. Merely because in some Supreme Court’s decisions Government Companies, Societies Registered under Societies Registration Act, Statutory bodies have been treated as State or instrumentalties of the State for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India in respect of certain service matters would not mean that they become Government for all purposes. Section 27(ia) is clear that extended time limit of one year is applicable only to imports made by the Government, by any individual for his personal use or by any educational research or charitable institution or hospital. Undoubtedly, M/s Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. even though its shares are owned by the President of India is not Government. It is a Government Company and is not Government.
7. In view of the foregoing, the extended time limit cannot be applicable to the appellants. As to Sh. Tandon’s argument that for the purpose of making less charge demand under Section 27(ia) of the Act, Customs authorities have treated M/s. H.A.L. as Government and applied the time limit of one year. It is sufficient to say that merely because the Customs authorities committed a mistake in those cases would be no reason that the sams mistake should ba repeated in the appeal before us. As to prayer for condonation of delay, it is sufficient to say that there is no provision in statute for condonation of such delay.
8. In view of the foregoing discussion, without going into the merits of the case, on the question of time bar, the appeal stands dismissed.