JUDGMENT
H. Suresh, J.
1. The petitioners are the manufacturers of refrigerating and air-conditioning machinery and appliances. Between May 1979 and November 1980, the petitioners imported various consignments of component parts of refrigeration and air-conditioning compressors. It is the case of the petitioners that the items imported by them were not covered by Notification No. 80/62-CE issued under item No. 29A (3) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, though falling under item No. 29A and hence no additional duty under Section 3A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was leviable on the goods either under item No. 29A or under item No. 68. This appears to be an admitted position. However, without realising this, the petitioners had paid duty. When they realised their mistake, they made an application for refund on July 1, 1980. The Assistant Collector of Customs by his order dated March 19, 1981 rejected this application for refund mainly on the ground that the application was preferred after the expiry of six months of time limit stipulated under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Similarly, the Assistant Collector passed two other orders, one on April 6, 1981 and another on April 20, 1981, rejecting similar applications for refund on the same ground. The petitioners filed appeals against these orders. The Appellate Collector of Customs confirmed the orders passed by the Assistant Collector on the same ground. As against these orders, the petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the said orders. They also stated that they have also paid similar duties in respect of various other consignments in respect of which the petitioners are entitled to refund. The particulars of the same additional duties claimed in respect of which the petitioners had not filed any refund applications are given in Ex. P. In the petition, the petitioners have stated that when they made these applications it was done purely as test cases and no such applications were made in respect of the other consignments imported between May 1979 to February 1981 and they made no other application in respect of the items on which additional duty was illegally collected by the respondents.
2. It is not necessary for me to go into the details inasmuch it is a clear case that the duty has been collected without the authority of law and by mistake. The respondents are bound to refund the amounts as claimed by the petitioners.
3. However, as regards the items set out in Ex. P Mr. Rege appearing for the respondents, submitted that the petitioners had not preferred any applications and, therefore, no relief can be granted in respect of those items. He also submitted that the respondents are unable to verify whether the particulars as set out in Ex. P are correct or not.
4. It is true that petitioners have not preferred any application in respect of the items in Ex. P. However. it is clear from the attitude of the respondents that they would have rejected all these applications. Therefore, the application for refund in respect of these items would have been an empty formality. In any event the claims are all from May 1979 and the petition has been filed in February 1982 and, therefore, the Court can certainly entertain this petition in respect of those claims also. And since the amounts have been collected without the authority of law the Court can pass an order for refund for those items also. However, in my order I would give suitable directions with regard to those items.
5. I, therefore, pass the following order:
Rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b).
However, with regard to items set out in Ex. P, I direct that the petitioners should furnish all the particulars of the claims together with the necessary documents in support of their claims within a period of four weeks from today.
The respondents to verify as to the correctness of the items imported and also the amounts claimed by way of refund and such scrutiny should be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date the petitioners furnish the requisite information. After scrutiny the respondents should refund the amounts due and payable in respect of those items as also in respect of the other three refund applications within a period of eight weeks thereafter.
In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.