9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m plus countervailing duty at the rate of Rs. 175/-per M/Ton. On 29.4.1981, the appellants Clearing Agents M/s. B.G. Somadder Sons filed an application claiming refund of c.v. duty amounting to Rs. 1,08,290.01 paise on the ground that c.v. duty was exempted under Notification No. 196/76-Cus. Subsequently, on 21.9.1981 the importers made another claim for refund of Rs. 7,33,540.43 on the ground that the goods were of Rumanian origin and under Notification No. 342/76-Cus., dated 2.8.1976, goods of Rumanian origin were exempted from 50% of the standard rate of duty. The claims were rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs on the ground that (1) the goods, though covered by Notification No. 197/76-Cus., have been correctly assessed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms duty. He has relied upon the judgments reported in t983 E.C.R. 994 (Tribunal), 1983 E.L.T. 166 (Tribunal), 1983 E.L.T. 361 and 1984 (15) E.L.T. 417. 3. In the case of SAP Industries, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay (1983 E.L.T. 166) it was held by this Tribunal that filing a refund claim within the prescribed time limit is a statutory requirement under Section 27 of the Customs Act. In Food Corporation of India v. Collector of Customs, Madras (1983 E.L.T. 361) it was held by this Tribunal that the appellants shifted their stand with regard to the inspection charges and that amounted to a fresh claim and was hit by limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act. Again, in the case of Food Corporation of India v. Collector of Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms duty under Notification No. 342/76-Cus., dated 2.8.1976. In the said case, the Tribunal also held that an amendment in a claim could be made even after expiry of limitation period if it was necessary for the purpose of determining the question in controversy and if it did not introduce a new cause of action or raise a different case. In the present case, the controversy in the original refund claim was regarding the levy of countervailing duty. The subsequent claim under letter dated 21.9.1981 was not necessary to determine the controversy over countervailing duty. in the second claim, the appellants made out a different case. Further the Tribunal also held in that case that the Tribunal had no power to waive or relax the period of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act should be rejected as barred by limitation under that Section. 6. The orders passed by the lower authorities do not suffer from any infirmity and as such, the same are to be upheld. Following the Supreme Court s decision in the case of Miles India, we, therefore, dismiss this appeal and confirm the impugned order. 7. [Order per : Shri S.D. Jha, Vice President]. - The first claim for refund dated 29.4.1981 was for a definite amount of Rs. 1,08,219.01. The next claim dated 21.9.1981 was for Rs. 7,33,540.43 P. The first claim was not a claim for pure and simple re-assessment and consequent refund but for a definite amount. Considering this, the lower authorities were justified in treating the cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
