9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (4) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there was a double payment of customs duty and that there was a short landing of the goods for which the duty was paid. 2. The appellants imported 422.080 MT of inedible Mutton Tallow. The vessel transporting the said mutton tallow reached Bombay on or about 26-11-1980 and Bill of Entry for home consumption for the entire quantity was filed and the duty of Rs. 2,97,675.00 was paid on 26-11-1980. The vessel, however, discharged only 339.620 MT of mutton tallow and because of some disturbance at the port, sailed out of the port without discharging the balance quantity. The vessel returned to Bombay port in the second week of January, 1981 and discharged the balance quantity of 82.500 MT for which the appellants filed a separate Bill of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 19-8-85. It is submitted by the appellant that they were misguided by the endorsement on the docket and hence the delay caused therein may be condoned. 4. Before hearing of the appeal on merits, we have considered the application for condonation of delay. We find that the delay is on account of misdirection given on the docket of the Order-in-Appeal. There is no negligence on the part of the appellants as they did file an appeal before the authorities within the stipulated period and has presented the appeal within a week after receipt of the papers from the authority and, therefore, we condone the delay. 5. Arguing on merits, Shri M.S. Sanklecha, the learned advocate submitted that here is a clear case of double payment of duty. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in 1988 (22) E.L.T. 552. 6. Shri K.M. Mondal, the learned SDR for the department, however, supported the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the duty paid on 15-1-1981 was against the goods already received and the double duty allegedly paid, could only be the one which was paid on 26-11-1980 which was the duty paid for the goods not received. He submitted that the refund of duty which can be claimed by the appellants could only be the duty paid in excess on 26-11-1980 and the same being obviously barred by limitaion prescribed under Sec. 27 of the Customs Act, the claim has rightly been rejected by the Assistant Collector. He relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Miles India Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Custom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court in Miles India Ltd. and Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills (supra). In the later judgment of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has made the position absolutely clear that the Tribunal constituted under the statute have to scrupulously follow the provisions of the enactment. The only provision for claiming refund under the Customs Act is found in Sec. 27 of the Customs Act, where the time limit prescribed is as six months and as such the Tribunal cannot take any liberty in holding as to whether the amount of duty collected has to be treated as a deposit with the Government as laid down in Re - South India Corporation (supra). The claim for refund of the sum of Rs. 59,554.65 has, therefore, to be held as time barred and the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
