Customs Act, 1962 › Chapter V — Levy of, and Exemption from, Customs Duties

Section 28B. Duties collected from the buyer to be deposited with the Central Government

Customs Act, 1962

Bare Act

28B. Duties collected from the buyer to be deposited with the Central Government. —

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any order or direction of the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal or any Court or in any other provision of this Act or the regulations made thereunder, every person who is liable to pay duty under this Act and has collected any amount in excess of the duty assessed or determined or paid on any goods under this Act from the buyer of such goods in any manner as representing duty of customs, shall forthwith pay the amount so collected to the credit of the Central Government.

(1A) Every person who has collected any amount in excess of the duty assessed or determined or paid on any goods or has collected any amount as representing duty of customs on any goods which are wholly exempt or are chargeable to nil rate of duty from any person in any manner, shall forthwith pay the amount so collected to the credit of the Central Government.

(2) Where any amount is required to be paid to the credit of the Central Government under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A), as the case may be, and which has not been so paid, the proper officer may serve on the person liable to pay such amount, a notice requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount, as specified in the notice to the credit of the Central Government.

(3) The proper officer shall, after considering the representation, if any, made by the person on whom the notice is served under sub-section (2), determine the amount due from such person (not being in excess of the amount specified in the notice) and thereupon such person shall pay the amount so determined.

(4) The amount paid to the credit of the Central Government under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) or sub-section (3) as the case may be, shall be adjusted against the duty payable by the person on finalisation of assessment or any other proceeding for determination of the duty relating to the goods referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A).

(5) Where any surplus is left after the adjustment made under sub-section (4), the amount of such surplus shall either be credited to the Fund or, as the case may be, refunded to the person who has borne the incidence of such amount, in accordance with the provisions of section 27 and such person may make an application under that section in such cases within six months from the date of the public notice to be issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs for the refund of such surplus amount.

Judgments on Section 28B

  • Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. — Supreme Court of India, 19 Dec 1996. Nothing can be collected or retained under a taxing Act beyond what the charging section read with the machinery provisions authorises; amounts collected in excess are not duty at all, and their retention offends…
  • Mafatlal Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad Etc. Etc.. Vs. vs Union Of India Etc. Etc — Supreme Court of India, 19 Dec 1996. A claimant for refund of duty paid under mistake of law who has passed on the burden to the consumer and suffered no loss or injury cannot maintain an action for restitution under Section 72 of the Contract Act, and the…
  • The Commissioner Of Customs… vs Chaudhary Ship Breakers — Gujarat High Court, 17 Sep 2025. Where excess customs duty is paid on a quantity of goods that never existed and no sale of such goods was possible, the question of passing on the duty incidence does not arise, so the refund cannot be denied to the…
  • Mundhra Exim Pvt Ltd Represented By Its Director Mr Ashish Mundhra And Others Vs Union Of India vs Union Of India — Madhya Pradesh High Court, 21 Apr 2025. Provisional attachment of bank accounts under Section 110(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 can be imposed only during the pendency of proceedings under Sections 28, 28AAA or 28B — that is, after issuance of a Show Cause…
  • Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs C.Cus - Kol — CESTAT, 19 Sep 2023. Where prices of petroleum products are fixed under the Administered Price Mechanism and any excess collection of duty is surrendered to the oil pool account, there is no excess collection of duty recoverable from the…
  • Commissioner Of Customs, Acc (Import) vs Anurag Trading Company — Delhi High Court, 29 Mar 2023. Even where a recovery provision like Section 28B of the Customs Act prescribes no limitation, the demand must be initiated within a reasonable period — reasonably benchmarked to the five-year limitation under Section 28…
  • Mahendra Industries vs Indore — CESTAT, 17 May 2022. Double payment of the same tax liability is not permissible and shall be without authority of law.
  • M/S.Unik Traders vs The Additional Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 29 Nov 2021. Investigation and assessment are distinct functions: the DRI may only gather and pass on intelligence, while the 'proper officer' under Section 2(34) read with Notification No.40/2012-Cus (N.T.) alone may assess Bills…
  • Semco Electric Pvt. Ltd. (Unit - I) vs Cce Goa — CESTAT, 12 Jun 2019. Once the proper officer has assessed the goods and permitted clearance, the assessment cannot be reopened except through review under Section 129D, and where the assessing authority itself accepted the declared value…
  • Commnr.,Central Excise, Madras vs M/S. Adison & Co. Ltd — Supreme Court of India, 29 Aug 2016. Refund of duty can be allowed only where the incidence of duty has not been passed on to any other person, including the ultimate consumer — the claimant must show it actually bore the burden of the duty.
  • M/S. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd vs Cc, Visakhapatnam — CESTAT, 19 Aug 2016. Where sale prices are fixed under the Administered Price Mechanism, excess collections are surrendered to the oil pool account, and invoices do not separately indicate customs duty, no amount can be treated as duty of…
  • Shivanth Rai Harnarain (India) Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise,… — CESTAT, 26 Dec 2013. Where export cess is paid under a mistaken belief after repeal of the cess law and not rectified by the Revenue, the unjust enrichment clause does not bar refund and non-appeal against the shipping bill assessment is…
  • M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise — CESTAT, 7 Feb 2012. Imported customs duty paid goods are 'excisable goods' under Section 11D(1) of the Central Excise Act, but the amount collected as duty thereon is recoverable only from the manufacturer/producer or the importer under…
  • 4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To… vs Represented By None For The Appellants — CESTAT, 9 Jul 2009. DTA sales by a 100% EOU, whether or not made with the Development Commissioner's permission, are assessable to duty under the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the benefit of exemption under…
  • 4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To… vs Represented By Shri M.H. Patil, Adv — CESTAT, 24 Feb 2009. Where an assessee collects duty from customers calculated on a basis unrelated to the CVD actually paid at ex-bond clearance, the excess so collected is recoverable under Section 28B of the Customs Act, 1962, and the…
  • Meghalaya Metals And Minerals (P) Ltd. vs The Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. — Gauhati High Court, 10 Aug 1998. A refund claim founded on excess payment due to misinterpretation or misapplication of an exemption notification must be adjudicated under Section 11B, and even a favourable Tribunal order does not entitle the claimant…
  • Collr. Of Cus. vs Indo-Swiss Synthetic Gem Mfg. Co. Ltd. — Madras High Court, 22 Nov 1995. Customs duty collected without authority of law is refundable in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 where the Section 27 remedy is futile - the Assistant Collector cannot entertain a time-barred claim unless the duty…
  • Laxmi Starch Limited vs Union Of India — Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana), 29 Apr 1993. A claimant who has passed on the burden of an indirect tax to buyers is not entitled to a refund of excess duty; refund lies only with proof that the claimant bore the burden, under the unjust-enrichment scheme embodied…
  • Deep Exports vs Mmtc Ltd — Gujarat High Court, 29 Apr 2022. Paying under protest, when one is not liable to pay, is paying under coercion, and money so wrongfully collected must be refunded under Section 72 of the Contract Act with interest.
  • M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd vs Cce, Chandigarh-I — CESTAT, 30 Dec 2016. Where petroleum product prices are fixed under the Administered Price Mechanism with excess recoveries surrendered to, and deficiencies made good by, the oil pool account, there is no excess collection of duty and…

All 23 judgments