9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (5) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (J)]. - This appeal arises out of and is directed against order-in-appeal bearing No. S/49-125/83M dated 11-7-1983 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay. 2. The appellant has not chosen to file the order-in-original. 3. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Collector, rejecting the appellants claim for refund of duty on the ground of limitation. The appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty made in respect of replacement parts and, therefore, the authorities below were not correct in holding that their claim is barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act. It was urged that the replacement parts were supplied free of cost and, therefore, no duty was to be levied on the replaced parts. 6. Shri Prabhu, appearing for the Collector, opposed this appeal and contended that the claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It appears the supplier replaced the defective parts free of charge. But then, the appellants cleared the replaced parts on payment of duty. It is the duty which the appellants sought refund on the ground that they were supplied free of cost and the earlier parts supplied were defective. 9. If the appellants were not liable to pay any duty in respect of replaced parts, they ought not to have cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ective parts stated to have been received by the appellant. The refund was sought of the duty paid in respect of replacement parts. This claim was within time. Both the authorities were not correct in holding that this claim was barred under Section 27. But then, the refund claim itself is not sustainable in law. The appellants were liable to pay duty in respect of replacement parts and they have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
