1992 (3) TMI 232

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r-in-appeal No. 1997/89 BCH, dated 21-12-1989 confirming the order-in-original No. S/8-1-1625/88M, dated 14-12-1988 refusing the appellants claim for refund of the duty amount to the tune of Rs. 75,784/-. The Asstt. Collector rejected the claim on the ground that the shortage was noticed after Bonding in warehouse as indicated in the survey report. The Collector (Appeals) however allowed the appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f charge order. He also submitted that the survey conducted by an approved surveyor was also a joint survey where the officers of the customs were also associated. He therefore pleaded that the approach taken by both the authorities below was not proper, and Section 23 of the Customs Act clearly became applicable. In his submissions, the Collector (Appeals) seems to have referred to one decision o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re the customs out of charge order and that there was a shortage to the extent of 109 kgs. When the competent authority under the Customs Act has issued a clear certificate, both in relation to the shortage and also in relation to the survey conducted before out of charge order, the refund claim was entertainable vide Section 23 of the Customs Act. Merely because the survey was not conducted withi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X