9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 224X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -5-89 sought clearance of the imported goods (metal findings) on payment of duty of Rs. 2,32,646/-. But the Customs authorities alleged that the quantity actually imported was in excess of the declared quantity and accordingly the Assistant Commissioner adjudicated the matter and ordered confiscation of the goods with option to get the same redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 2000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/-. The goods were valued in the adjudication order at Rs. 10,400/-. The appellants accordingly paid dues and got the goods cleared. They however, filed an appeal against that adjudication order before the Collector (Appeals) who dismissed the same on the ground that the adjudication order was not signed by the Assistant Collector. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pted. The duty amount had been deposited by the appellants of which they had sought the refund, in pursuance of the adjudication order of the Assistant Collector and not otherwise. The amount had been deposited only on account of the duty found payable on the imported goods, by the appellants and not on any other account. The Tribunal while deciding the appeal of the appellants vide order dated 7-8-96 only directed the appellants to approach the AC if the adjudication order was not signed by him. There is nothing on record to show if the appellants ever asked the adjudicating authority i.e. the AC to sign that order. In the writ petition, the appellants only got the direction that their refund claim should be decided expeditiously by the AC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as permitted. Similarly the ratio of law laid down in Super Wire Industries v. Union of India - 1992 (58) E.L.T. 429 (Cal.) = 1994 (51) ECR 163 is not of any help to the appellants. In that case, it has only been observed that order of the superior is binding and has to be carried out by the AC. The refund could not be denied on the goods for unjust enrichment. But in the present case, the position is otherwise. The trade notice referred by the Counsel is also not applicable to the case. Similarly, the law laid down in Sundeep Industries v. Collector of Customs - 1991 (37) ECR 595 is not attracted to the facts of the present case. In that case the issue was quite different and it was observed that when the import was lawful, goods could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
