9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 27A of the Customs Act. 2. The facts giving raise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under : 3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Audio Cassettes and other plastic components of the audio cassettes. In the year 1987 they imported consignment of polyesterene resin in the form of moulding powder and cleared the same through Calcutta port B/E vide Nos. 1-1599 dated 20-9-1987. They for payment of countervailing duty, sought clearance under sub-heading 3904.10 of the Central Excise Tariff with duty at the rate of 20%, under Notification No. 133/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended vide Notification No. 89/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987. But the Customs authorities denied the benefit of that notification on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reverse the same. They took the matter to the Tribunal by filing an appeal and the Tribunal vide order dated 9-2-1988 reversed that order of the Assistant Commissioner and directed the refund of the amount to the appellants. The refund was accordingly allowed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 25-2-1989 but no interest was paid thereon to the appellants as claimed by them. Their claim of the appellants for payment of duty was rather rejected vide 12-7-1999. 6. The appellants thereafter filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) against the said order of the Assistant Commissioner but remained unsuccessful as their appeal was rejected through the impugned order. 7. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hs as required by the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act from the date when the appellants produced the evidence in complete form on 21-12-1998. The Claim of the appellants for interest on delayed payment had been rightly not allowed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). 10. Apart from this, the refund claim of the appellants relates to the period of 1987 when they were denied the benefit of Notification No. 133/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 and duty was charged from them at the rate of 40% instead of 20% as prayed by them. At that time there was no provision in the statute (Customs Act) for payment of interest on delayed payment to the applicant. None of the officers had inherent power to allow interest while refunding the duty am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
