9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants imported 4 consignments of CELLULOSE ACETATE SCRAP and 2 consignments of CELLULOSE ACETATE BUTYRATE SCRAP." All 6 consignments were assessed to basic Customs Duty under Heading 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff and under Tariff Item 15A of the Central Excise Tariff for the purpose of levy of additional duty of customs (countervailing duty). The subject matter of this appeal relates only to the dispute of basic customs duty on the consignment of Cellulose Acetate Butyrate Scrap - the dispute of additional duty is settled by Order No. 759/86-D and Order Nos. 776 to 780/86-D dated 17-09-1989. Two Bills of Entry were filed for clearance of the Cellulose Acetate Butyrate Scrap. In one of them, assessment was claimed at the rate of 60% + 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed before the Tribunal which were allowed by Order No. 759/86-D and Order Nos. 776 to 780/86-D dated 17-09-1986. 3. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the refund claims which were remanded for fresh adjudication holding that claim for reassessment of basic duty under Notification No. 227/76-Cus dated 02-08-1976 was a fresh ground which was barred by the limitation provided under Section 27(i) of the Customs Act. The Appellate Collector upheld the rejection on the same ground, holding that the time limit of 6 months for the purpose of refund claim in respect of basic customs duty should be considered from the date of payment of duty and not from the date of reassessment by the Assistant Collector i.e. on 31-07-1980. Hence, this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay in claiming refund of basic duty. They run the risk of their claim being barred by limitation. 6. The case law cited by the appellants is not relevant as the facts of those cases are distinguishable and as the point for consideration in this appeal was not in dispute in those decisions. The decision in the case of Premier Tyres Ltd., Kalamassery v. Collector of Customs, Madras, (1984 16 E.L.T. 419) does not further the appellants cause as the Tribunal, in that case, was dealing with amendment in a claim consequent to change in classification and held that such amendment was permissible after expiry of limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The question in that appeal was - in a case where the appellant has made a claim for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
