9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 49 of the Customs Act, 1962. The duty was determined by the Customs authorities on 5th December, 1996 of Rs. 5,18,602/- for Microsul and Rs. 2,98,146/- for Folizyme. The appellants paid total duty of Rs. 8,16,748/- in respect of both the items on 9th December, 1996. The Customs authorities released Microsul on 10th December, 1996 and detained Folizyme. On 15th June, 1999, the Customs authorities ordered to release of the detained goods. The appellants lifted 203 pails on Folizyme from the bonded warehouse out of which 73 pails were in empty condition. The appellants informed the bonded warehouse and requested for joint survey to the authorities on 20th July, 1999. On 10th December, 1999, the bonded warehouse signified its no objection to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 27th September, 2002 in response to the letter dated 20th September, 2002 written by the Assistant Commissioner to explain the delay. The appellants also submitted the evidences to show that the incidence of duty have not been passed on by him on any other person. The Assistant Commissioner rejected his claim for refund on 14th November, 2002 and Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on 18th August, 2003 holding that it is time-bar. Hence the appeal has been preferred. 3. Heard both the parties. 4. Ld. Advocate, Shri J.P. Khaitan, appearing for the appellants, submits that the present case, the goods were detained in warehouse after paying Customs duty which was evident from the Bill of Entry for home consumption. The endorsemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paid on 9th December, 1996 and the refund application has been presented on 16th September, 2002. The goods were released on 15th June, 1999 and was lifted on 30th June, 1999. So, the refund application has been filed after the expiry period of six months, so it is time-barred. He further submits that so far as 73 pails are concerned, they were lifted in the year 1999 and they were empty. So the refund became due on 30th June, 1999. So it is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. Further, he submits that only duty element is Rs. 1,24,227/- and rest of the amount is the cost of the goods which is not refundable. He further submits that no remission application can be filed after depositing of the duty. So the appeal may kindly be dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g in the warehouse which was in the custody of Customs and damage occurred during that period. So the question of passing the incidence of duty on other persons does not arise. 7. The Assistant Commissioner of the Customs, Kolkata, in his Order-in-Original dated 14-11-2002 and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in his order dated 18-8-2003, committed an error in holding that the claim is time-bar. For the above reasons, the appeal succeeds. 8. In so far as the refund is concerned, the appellant is entitled only refund for Rs. 1,24,227/-. So far as Rs. 62,542/- is concerned, the appellant has lifted the goods on 30th June, 1999 and the claim pertaining to 73 pails are concerned, it is time-barred. Appeal is allowed up to Rs. 1,24,227/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
