9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (6) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the CTA and claimed refund of excess duty recovered . Subsequently by their letter dated 22-10-1981, they requested that the goods might be re-assessed at 40% ad velorem under heading 73.17/19(4) of the CTA and 26AA of CET and refund of excess duty collected, be allowed to them. The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras on the ground that the goods were correctly assessed on the bill of entry and the claim of the appellants for re-assessment was not tenable. The appellants filed an appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector, which was disposed of by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) by the impugned order. The Collector (Appeals) has held that the goods under reference were correctly classifiabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He has not held that the goods were not assessable to countervailing duty under item 26AA. He has rejected the claim for refund of C.V. duty on the ground that the amount of C.V. duty was not included in the claim for refund or in the working sheet attached to the refund application. Drawing our attention to the copy of the application dated 31-3-1981, the learned advocate has stated that in the working sheet of refund the appellants have shown, inter alia, the following :- Duty paid C 100% + 20% CED 50% as per Bill of entry = Rs. 1,43,497.10 Duty to be paid at 40% under item No 73.17/19(4) = Rs. 24,956.00 Discount to be refunded = Rs. 1,18,541.00 The amount of refund claim was Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssification of the goods for countervailing duty. As regards the decisions cited in para 2 (supra) the learned JDR has stated that the facts in those cases are different from the present case. In the case covered by the first mentioned decision, only the notification number and date were amended, but the ground of refund remain the same. In the second case, the amendment related to the change in the ICT item, but the amendment did not affect the claim for refund on account of basic Customs duty. In the last mentioned case, there was wrong citation of bill of entry which was corrected by the amendment. The earlier decisions of the Tribunal as cited by the learned advocate cannot, therefore, be applied to the present case. 4. We have heard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered . This expression read with the amount of claim shown in the working sheet enclosed to the refund application is sufficient to show that the appellants claimed refund of additional duty also. Their letter dated 22-10-1981 was by way of further elucidation of their original claim dated 31-3-1981. This letter was not the first claim for refund of additional duty. In the circumstances, we hold that their claim for additional duty was not barred by limitation under Section 27 of the Custom Act, 1962. In the result, we allow this appeal and direct that the differential amount of additional duty be refunded to the appellants after re-assessing the goods under item 26AA of the CET instead of item 15A (2) ibid. As the claim is clearly admissib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
