9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (5) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ures various products from iron steel and other materials imported from abroad as well as from indigenous materials available in India. On or around 31st March, 1965, the petitioner imported certain Tin Mill Black Rejects Waste/Waste and Coil ends. The said goods arrived in Bombay on 6th May, 1965 and were cleared by the Customs on 4th June, 1965. The Customs Authorities levied duty by treating the goods imported by the petitioners as per item 63(20)(a) 2(ii) but recovered higher duty as became clear subsequently. At the time when the duty was levied, the petitioners were under the bona fide impression that the Authorities had correctly levied the duty on the goods imported and it was in accordance with the Tariff item applicable. However ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing welded tubes. The scope of this ruling shall not extend to a date prior to 20-8-1965. 3. Thereafter by a public notice dated the 11th April 1966, an amendment to the above mentioned ruling was issued. The said amendment reads as follows : In the last sentence of the Public Tariff No. 6 dated 24-2-1965, for the date 20-8-1965 read the date 28-2-1965. Soon after the aforesaid public notice and the amendment, the petitioners realised that the goods imported by them were liable for duty only at the rate of Rs. 90/- and not at the rate of Rs. 360/- as levied and paid at the time of the clearance by the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, preferred a refund application dated 6-3-1966, inter alia, claiming refund in keeping wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty has been assessed and recovered without the authority of law. It was observed : Section 40 on which the Union of India relied in its return, provides that no customs duties or charges which have been paid, and of which, repayment wholly or in part, is claimed in consequence of the same having been paid through inadvertance, error or misconstruction, shall be returned, unless such claim is made within three months from the date of such payment. The Section clearly applies only to cases where duties have been paid through inadvertence, error or misconstruction, and where refund application has to be made within three months from the date of such payment. Similarly this Court in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. v. Union of India, 1981 E.L.T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
