9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Refund of duty paid on import of specific items claimed as drug intermediates under a notification. 2. Dismissal of refund applications by Assistant Collector of Customs on grounds of items not being drug intermediates and being time-barred. 3. Partial allowance of appeal by Appellate Collector in favor of sorbitol but against propylene glycol and paraphenetidine. 4. Dismissal of appeal by Customs Tribunal on limitation grounds without examining the merit of the claim. 5. Challenge of Tribunal's order in High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. Consideration of limitation in refund applications before authorities versus writ jurisdiction. 7. Requirement to determine if propylene glycol and paraphenetidine are drug intermediates and entitled to exemption benefits. 8. Remittance of the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh decision on the above issues. The High Court of Bombay heard a case where petitioners sought refund of duty paid on import of specific items, claiming them as drug intermediates under a notification. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the applications as the items were deemed not to be drug intermediates and were beyond the time limit specified in the Customs Act. The Appellate Collector partially allowed the appeal, granting refund for sorbitol but not for propylene glycol and paraphenetidine. The Customs Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on limitation grounds, without assessing the merit of the claim. The High Court noted that the limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act does not apply when approaching the court in writ jurisdiction. The court agreed to remit the matter back to the Tribunal to determine whether propylene glycol and paraphenetidine qualify as drug intermediates entitled to exemption benefits. The Tribunal was instructed to decide the matter promptly without considering the limitation, aiming for a resolution within six months. The court set aside the Tribunal's order and did not award any costs in the case.
|
