The question of unjust enrichment overrides the question of limitation in cases where the State collects taxes without authority of law.

( 1 ) THE Court : This writ petition has been made by the petitioner, a Government of India Enterprise, challenging an order of appeal passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), dated 31st July, 1995 rejecting the prayer for refund of excess amount and confirming the earlier order passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraising Refund Section ).

( 2 ) THE petitioner company required to import certain steel plates from abroad for carrying out its manufacturing business. Those steel plates are to be assessed for Customs Duty at the rates prescribed under the Customs Tariff Act. The ascertainment of Customs Tariff is dependable upon the quantity, nature, character and material composition. By a purchase order dated 7th February, 1990 MMTC imported 30 pcs. of Hot Rolled Plates from its Belgium Exporter and shipped it to a vessel under Bill of Lading No. Z-02, dated 6th April, 1990. The petitioner company purchased said plates from MMTC on High Seas basis. The Customs Authorities realised Rs. 62,57,236/- on account of duty and Rs. 27,89,527/- on account of interest totalling to Rs. 90,46,763/ -. The said amount by mistake was considered H. R. plates as alloy steel plates as per tariff manual without checking the declaration given by the importer. Such H. R. plates are Non-Alloy Steel Plates i. e. Mild Steel Plates thereby rate of Customs Duty is much lesser than the realised amount. The Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraising Refund Section) by an order dated 5th January, 1995 held that since the importer's application for refund has been received by the office after the expiry of six months from the date of payment of Duty, the claim is rejected as time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 speaks about the claim of refund duty. In Sub-section (1) therein I find that application for refund will be made within the time framed as given thereunder as follows : (a) in the case of any import made by any individual for his personal use or by Government or by any educational research of charitable institution or hospital, before the expiry of one year; (b) in any other case, before the expiry of six months.

( 3 ) AN appeal was preferred from such order whereunder two points were formulated for the purpose of due consideration : (i) whether the duty was paid under mistake of law? (ii) whether rejection of the refund claim is time-barred?

( 4 ) THE Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) held that so far the question of mistake of law, the determination does not fall within the purview of the forum. It can only be determined by Court of law. Therefore, rejection of claim is justiciable as the authority cannot go beyond his competency under the Act. Such Appellate Authority relied upon two Supreme Court decisions and ultimately held that if the payment of duty is made under a mistake of law, the remedy doss not lie with the departmental authorities but with the Civil Court. Accordingly, the appeal was rejected.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to me, the appellate authority passed the order under undue haste. The original claim was rejected being time-barred. Therefore, unless the delay condoned there is no scope of the authority to go into the question of recovery of purported excess Customs duty. The appellate authority did not adjudge the issue even after formulating the point and thereby committed a mistake in realising the point to come to an appropriate conclusion. In other words, he completely by-passed the issue. By now, it is well settled that delay can be condoned by the Court of law unless such power is given to any authority. This proposition is applicable whereunder the applicability of Limitation Act is available. The general proposition is that unless specified no forum other than Court can condone the delay. The reference of the Supreme Court was not truly interpreted by the authority concerned. Upon going through the ratio of (Collector of C. E. , Chandigarh v. Doa