9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor (Customs) enhanced the value on which duty was paid by the Appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the value as declared by the Appellant. The Appellants have also requested for payment of refund of excess duty along with interest on the excess duty paid and refund of demurrage charges paid by them. The Commissioner (Appeals) in both the impugned Orders has held that the Appellants are entitled to the consequential refund as a consequence of accepting the value declared by them. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has given his findings that the procedure for claiming refund of duty or the interest has been provided in Section 27 of the Customs Act; that since they did not file a regular refund claim under Section 27, their r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ector then there was no occasion for not releasing the goods and the petitioner cannot even be held liable for demurrage in these facts and circumstances. In our opinion, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the release of the goods without payment of any demurrage/ground rent charges/container charges in respect of the period from the date of filing of the bills of entry. 4. Countering the arguments, Shri A.K. Mehta, ld. SDR submited that the cause for refund arises only on the date the Collector (Appeals) passed order accepting the value of the imported goods as declared by the Appellants; that refund can be considered and sanctioned as per the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act; that a refund application c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date the duty was collected till payment. 5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. From the material brought on record, we observe that the Commissioner (Appeals), only under the impugned Orders, has held that enhancement of value by the Department was not warranted and accepted the declared value. The refund of duty, it appears, is to be considered in pursuance of these impugned Orders. The ld. SDR has rightly emphasised that refund is governed by the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act. This has been the views of the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. U.O.I., 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) wherein it was held that by virtue of sub-section 3 of Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
