9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim for re-assessment of basic customs duty under Notification No. 227/76-Cus dated 02-08-1976 and its limitation under Section 27(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Claim for Re-assessment of Basic Customs Duty The case involved a dispute regarding the basic customs duty on the import of Cellulose Acetate Butyrate Scrap under Notification No. 227/76-Cus. The appellants imported 6 consignments, with the focus on the Cellulose Acetate Butyrate Scrap. The dispute arose due to the assessment of duty at different rates in two Bills of Entry and the subsequent claim for reassessment. The Assistant Collector initially re-assessed the duty, leading to a refund of the difference in additional duty. The appellants then appealed for partial relief in basic duty under Notification No. 227/76. The lower authority remanded the issue for de novo consideration, specifically addressing the claim for basic duty under the said notification. Issue 2: Limitation under Section 27(i) of the Customs Act The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claims on the grounds of being time-barred under Section 27(i) of the Customs Act. The Appellate Collector upheld this rejection, emphasizing that the 6-month time limit for refund claims should be calculated from the date of payment of duty, not the date of reassessment. The appellants argued that Section 27(i) did not apply as the reassessment was done by the Assistant Collector, not a lower-ranking officer. However, the tribunal found no merit in this argument, stating that the Assistant Collector's reassessment was within the scope of Section 27(i) as it dealt with the refund claim. Conclusion The tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the rejection of the refund claims based on the limitation under Section 27(i) of the Customs Act. The appellants' failure to claim the benefit of concessional basic duty under Notification No. 227/76 in a timely manner led to the consequences of delay in claiming the refund. The tribunal differentiated the present case from cited case law, emphasizing that the claim for reassessment of basic duty was time-barred due to the delay in claiming it for the first time after the expiry of the statutory limitation period.
|
