G. Sankaran, Member (T)

1. These appeals have their genesis in the notice bearing F. No. 380/141/80-Cus. II dated 24th March, 1981 issued to the Respondents by the Central Government under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. The notice called upon the Respondents to show cause why the Orders-in-Appeal Nos.-

(i) S/49-1608/80-R dated 8-8-1980;

(ii) S/49-443/79-R dated 11-12-1979;

(iii) S/49-1453/79-R dated 11-12-1979;

(iv) S/49-1572/79-R dated 11-12-1979 and,

(v) S/49-533/80-R dated 9-5-1980,

passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, allowing the appeals filed by them should not be set aside and the relative Assistant Collector's orders restored. The proceedings were transferred to this Tribunal in terms of Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962 for disposal as if they were appeals filed before the Tribunal.

2. Since all the matters arise out of the aforesaid consolidated show cause notice, this order disposes of all the matters.

3. The facts of the case, as set out in the show cause notice, in brief, are that the Respondents imported consignments of coconut oil on which the Customs authorities charged additional (countervailing) duty of Customs corresponding to the excise duty leviable on vegetable non-essential oils under item No. 12 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (GET, for short). The Respondents cleared the consignments on payment of the duty so assessed. Later on, they filed applications for refund of the additional duty on the ground that the coconut oil imported by them was unprocessed oil and, therefore, was exempt from payment of additional duty by virtue of Central Excise Notification No. 33/63, dated 1-3-1963. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claims filed by M/s. Kapadia Trading Co., M/s. Godhwani Bros. and M/s Sangam Oil Mills as hit by limitation under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The claims filed by the other Respondents were rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that they had failed to prove that the coconut oil imported by them was unprocessed. Against these orders, the Respondents preferred appeals to the Appellate Collector of Customs who held that no additional duty was payable and further that the question of limitation did not arise. All the appeals were allowed by the Appellate Collector. On examining the records of the cases, the Government of India formed the tentative view that the Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Appellate Collector were not correct, proper and legal for the reasons that the onus lay on the assessees to establish that the goods satisfied the conditions laid down in the exemption notification, that there was nothing on record to show that it had been established beyond doubt by any of the Respondents that the coconut oil imported by them was other than processed oil. In one of the matters, the Appellate Collector had relied on a certificate from the suppliers that the goods were not subjected to any of the processes mentioned in Notification No. 33/63-C.E. The Government considered that a mere affirmation that the goods were other than processed VNE oil would not be sufficient to attract exemption. The Government further observed that since the applications for refund were filed after six months from the date of payment of duty in some of the cases, the Appellate Collector seemed to have erred in deciding the relative appeals on merits on the wrong presumption that in such cases the time-limit under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act would not apply but that the limitation under the Indian Limitation Act would apply. The notice went on to say that in a case wherein goods had been wrongly classified or the benefit of an exemption notification was denied due to its wrong interpretation or otherwise by the proper officer of Customs in exercise of his judgment, the time-limit under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act would apply. Since Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule was introduced with effect from 1-3