9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in made a refund claim on 23-7-1983 for a sum of Rs. 1,25,320/- claiming the benefits of Customs Notification No. 105/77 dated 1-7-1977. The Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund Section), Madras, by order dated 28-1-1984 granted a refund of Rs. 1,25,251.39. The appellant filed another claim of refund on 2-9-1983 for the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,25,585.09 which has been rejected under the impugned order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) referred to supra as barred by limitation. 3. Shri Sashidharan, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the original refund claim of the appellant filed on 23-7-1983 was within time under law. During the pendency of the appellant s refund application, the appellant found out that the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt has not been decided at all by the original authority viz. Assistant Collector and therefore unless the appellant had invited an order and pursued it by way of an appeal before the lower appellate authority, the appellant would not be entitled to contend the same before this Tribunal merely because the lower appellate authority has made a passing reference that the second claim is barred by limitation. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned S.D.R. that the question with reference to the enhanced claim has not been considered at all in the order of the original authority viz. the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund Section), Madras, dated 28-1-1984 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 1,21,585.09 on 2-9-1983 and admittedly this amount was finally assessed on 2-2-1983. The claim for refund in respect of this amount was admittedly made for the first time on 2-9-1983 and is, therefore, clearly barred by limitation under Section 27 of the Act. The rulings relied upon by the learned Counsel are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case of Coromandel Fertilisers Limited v. Collector of Customs, Madras, reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 1001, it has been found as a fact that an application for refund was in existence for the amount in question before the expiry of the period of limitation which is not the case here. In the case of Kerala State Detergents Chemicals Limited v. Collector of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
