Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1991 (5) TMI 133

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the case are that the appellants sent the petition for refund claim by registered post under letter No. Import/OGL/18/86 dated 12-2-1986 for refund of certain duty in connection with the import of Propylene Glycol USP. The relevant facts found for decision in this case may be stated briefly as follows :- 2. The appellants paid the duty with respect to the above imported goods on 14-8-1985. But in fact, the vessel carrying the goods reached the port only on 21-11-1985. Thereafter, the appellants made an application for survey of the goods in question on 2-1-1986. The survey accordingly was held on 3-1-1986. After survey a shortage of 510 Kgs. of goods was detected. After detection of this shortage the appellants claimed refund for the abo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of entry at a very early date. But in fact, the vessel arrived on 21-11-1985 and in view of the proviso to Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 the bill of entry shall be deemed to have been presented on the date of such entry inwards and therefore, it was his contention that the time-limit will run from 21-11-1985. 4. The second limb of argument of Shri Biswas is to the effect that the wording of Section 27(1) is very important in this case. Shri Biswas pointed out that under Section 27(1) it is clearly stated that any person claiming refund of any duty paid by him in pursuance of an order of assessment may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Collector of Customs. Shri Biswas emphasised the words - may make an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the shortage was detected before clearance for home consumption. If that is so, it was his contention that immediately on detection of this the Assistant Collector was duty-bound to remit the duty on such goods and there was no question of an application in this regard. For all the above-said reasons he contended that the impugned order may be set aside. 7. Replying to the above-said contentions Shri B.B. Sarkar, learned Junior Departmental Representative contended that as far as the first contention is concerned Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 only speaks about the bill of entry which was presented before the date of entry inwards and the same shall be deemed to have been presented on the date of such entry inwards. Shri Sarkar, lea .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tended that the duty was already paid even prior to the date of the appellants asking for survey of the goods in question. Therefore, he contended that there is no question of payment of any duty under protest. As far as the last argument of Shri Biswas is concerned Shri Sarkar contended that the refund of any duty is governed by Sec. 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was his contention that any application for refund will have to be made within the prescribed period stipulated in Sec. 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the question of invoking Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not arise. As far as the observation made by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) as mentioned by Shri Biswas in his fir .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 the limitation of six months was not to be applied where duty had been paid under protest. Shri Biswas contended that the appellants had applied for survey of the goods on 02-1-1986 and the survey was held on 3-1-1986. Therefore, he contended that the duty paid on 14-8-1985 should be deemed to have been paid under protest. This argument also cannot be accepted for the simple reason that when the duty was paid no protest was lodged on 14-8-1985. Merely because the appellants had asked the Department for a survey of the goods it cannot be said that there is any deemed protest and that the duty was paid under protest on 14-8-1985. This argument also cannot be upheld. 11. Thirdly, it was contended befo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates