9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... each bill of entry in which the goods were cleared) to the Assistant Collector at Kandla Customs House in August, 1988 seeking refund of the difference of duty payable according to the decision of the Bombay High Court and the duty actually paid. The claim was not acted upon for six years. By order passed in 1994, the Assistant Collector held the claim (except for a small amount) to be admissible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In paragraph 96 of its judgment in Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India that any refund arising out of adjustment under sub-rule (5) of Rule 9B of the Rules, will not be governed by Section 11A or Section 11B of the Act. The same position will apply to the provisions under the Customs Act. 3. The logic of this argument has to be accepted. It was, in fact, not necessary for the appellant to fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is in excess of the duty finally assessed, the assessee, in the case of Rule 9B(c), the importer or the exporter, in case of Section 18, shall pay the deficiency or be entitled to refund, as the case may be. 5. The Supreme Court in its judgment, relied upon by the advocate for the appellant, has held that refund payable under Rule 9B(c) will not be subjected to the provisions of Section 11A of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
