9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (4) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. In the refund claim, it was stated that they have filed Bill of Entry dated 23-6-1986 for ex-bond clearance of 612 packages of components for two wheeler vide their letter dated 27-2-1986 which was presented by them on the same day. It was stated that the Superintendent (Customs) had given them to understand that clearance of the goods will be allowed on 28-2-1986 on presentation of the Treasury Challans evidencing payment of duty. But that on 28-2-1986 when they approached the Officers for clearance, the officers did not grant clearance on that day as per instructions of higher authorities. Therefore, they had to pay the higher rate of duty to take clearance of the goods on 3-3-1986 on payment of 10% auxiliary duty in terms of the budge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll their legal obligations by presenting the Bill of Entry. The refusal to grant clearance on 28-2-1986 was bad in law for which proposition he relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Priyanka Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Anr. v. Union of India Ors., reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 185 (S.C.) = 1990 (31) ECR 569 (S.C.). It was also contended that the Trade Notice regarding advance presentation of Bill of Entry cannot be a ground for denial of clearances, in such cases for which he relied upon the Bombay High Court decision in case of Harish Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1989 (43) E.L.T. 614 (Bom.). It was further argued that the refund could not also be denied due to the theory of unjust enrichment as this concept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid on 28-2-1983, the day of budget presentation 1983. The Court held that the Department was not entitled to refuse clearance on 28-2-1983 and to claim enhanced duty consequent on the budget from 1-3-1983. Therefore, the ratio of the Bombay High Court decision is applicable to the present case where also duty had been paid on 28-2-1986 but clearance was refused only in terms of the trade notice. The Collector (Appeals) on the other hand has upheld the Assistant Collector s Order on the reasoning that criterion under 15(b) requires the application of the rate of duty in force on the day of actual removal from the warehouse which in this case was 3-3-1986. On this point, further, the Supreme Court in the Priyanka Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Anr. ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
