Point of Law: Since the provisions of section 11B of the Act are not applicable to the claim of refund made by the petitioner, the limitation prescribed under the said provision would also not be applicable and the general provisions under the Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable.

JUDGMENT :

A.J.DESAI, J.

1. Rule. Mr.Priyank Lodha, learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos.2 & 3. Since the pleadings are completed, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for hearing today.

2. By way of the present petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash and set aside the impugned communication F.No.S/6-Misc./Ref/2017-18 dated 31.01.2018 issued by the Respondent No.2 and Communication F.No.S/6-Misc./Refund/2017-18 dated 18.10.2018 issued by the respondent No.3, by which, the respondents have refused to sanction and grant petitioner's refund claim towards excess custom duty to the tune of Rs.17,25,172/-. The petitioner has further prayed to direct the respondent authorities to pay the said amount with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from 12/04/2016 till the date of payment of the said refund to the petitioners.

3. In response to the Notice issued by this Court, the respondent Nos.2 & 3 have appeared through learned advocate Mr.Priyank Lodha and have filed affidavit-in-reply dated 17/06/2019 and opposed to grant any relief, as prayed for, by the petitioner.

4. The case put forward by the petitioner, is as under:

That the petitioner, a company, incorporated under the Companies Act,1956, is engaged inter alia, in the manufacture, exports and imports the goods. As per the provisions of Central Excise Tariff Act,1985, when the goods are imported by the petitioner, appropriate customs duties are paid to the respondent authorities. The petitioner company imported certain goods, for which, total amount of Rs.17,25,172/- was paid to IDBI Bank towards custom duty, for which, e- Payment Cyber Receipt was issued by the authority. The said amount was paid on 11/04/2016.

The petitioner imported another consignment of goods and for the same, he has paid an amount of Rs.95,07,943/- on 12/04/2016, on the next date of earlier first deposit.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was supposed to pay custom duty for second consignment to the tune of Rs.77,82,771/-. However, through oversight and bonafide mistake, the petitioner paid the aforesaid amount of Rs.95,07,943/- adding the earlier amount of Rs.17,25,172/-.

Having come to know about the same, an application in form of 102, under section 27 of the Customs Act, was filed with the respondent authority on 24/01/2018 and stated the ground of claim mentioning that the duty amount of Rs.17,25,172/- is paid twice through oversight and mistake and therefore, the same shall be refunded.

The said application came to be rejected by communication/ order dated 31/01/2018 on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation as provided sub-section (1) of section 27 of the Customs Act. Hence, this petition.

5. Mr. Dhaval Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not liable to pay Rs.95,07,943/- towards customs duty for the goods imported by him on 12/04/2016, however by mistake, additional amount of Rs.17,25,172/- was paid again on 12/04/2016 along with custom duty with regard to another consignment imported by the petitioner. The petitioner was suppose to pay customs duty to the tune of Rs.77,82,771/- only. However, through oversight and bonafide mistake, he added an amount of Rs.17,25,172/-, which was already paid on 11/04/2016 for another consignment. He would further submit that this additional amount paid is not a duty paid in excess or claiming any benefits under any other head, as provided under the Customs law. It is merely a mistake committed by the petitioner in paying the duty for the same goods on two occasions and therefore, it cannot be treated as duty as referred under section 27 of the Act and therefore, limitation would not be app