9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 87 imported a consignment of polystyrene resin in the form of moulding powder and cleared the goods through Calcutta Port vide Bill of Entry No. I-1600, dated 9-9-1987. For payment of C.V. duty the benefit of Notification No. 133/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amended vide Notification No. 89/87-C.E., dated 1-3-1987 was sought by them but the same was denied by the Customs authorities on the ground that the goods were not covered by that notification. Accordingly, the Bill of Entry was amended and C.V. duty was charged at the rate of 40% instead of 20%, as pleaded by the appellants. The appellants, however, made the payment and got the goods released. But, thereafter they filed claim for the refund of Rs. 1,30,188/- with the Assistant Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner dated 12-7-1999 was affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order-in-appeal. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellants are legally entitled to claim interest on the delayed payment, but it had been wrongly disallowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and as such the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the learned JDR has contended that the refund claim of the appellants was sanctioned within three months from the date of submission of the complete documents and as such interest had been rightly disallowed to them. 7. I have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 8. The bare perusal of the impugned order-in-appeal shows that the refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anctioned on 6-1-1999. The refund order was issued on 25-2-1999. Their claim was thus decided within three months and as such no interest could be legally allowed to them under Section 27A of the Customs Act. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner disallowing interest on the refund claim to the appellants on the refundable amount is perfectly valid and does not suffer from any legal infirmity. 11. Apart from this, even the perusal of the impugned order-in-appeal shows that the claim for interest was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 25-2-1999 when application for refund was made before him, on the basis of the order of the Tribunal dated 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
