9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (11) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er]. This is an appeal directed against the order in Appeal No. M-1324/AHD-514/85 [F. No. V. 2(18(III)1591/ 84/8889], dated 30-12-1985, rejecting the appellants appeal. 2. Shri Dave, the ld. advocate, appearing for the appellants, does not dispute the following factual position : The appellants have paid duty on a quantity of 2530 kgs. under G.P. No. 37, dated 14-5-1983. This payment is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly a double payment of duty and duty is not payable on the excess quantity which was not removed. Hence, it should not be considered to be duty but as deposit. In the case of such double payment of duty, the Tribunal in the case of South India Corporation (Agencies) Pvt. Ltd. - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1273 (CEGAT) has held that in a case of non-import of the goods, the duty paid has to be considered to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowed, the point of law is somewhat against the appellants for the following reasons. 3A. Under Rule 173-I, the Supdt, while assessing the RT 12 returns filed in the month of May, 83 can point out short payment or allow credit in respect of excess payment in respect of duty payments made in accordance with the approved classification list and price list. The question whether the quantity remove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , either in the form of refund order or in the form of order to review the assessment. In view of this position, the Supdt. in not taking cognisance of the endorsement made in the RT. 12 return of June, 1983 cannot be faulted. The only course available with the assessee, who has missed the bus in making the endorsement in the RT. 12 return of the month May, 1983 was to file a refund claim under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
