9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vided under Section 26 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The facts relating to the case may be stated as follows :- M/s. Express Transport Pvt. Ltd., CHA 11/68, had filed a Bill of Entry No. 2285 dated 8-7-1993 for clearance of Reformer Catalyst Tubes imported by M/s. Zauri Agro Chemicals Ltd. The clearance was sought classifying the item under CTH 8419.89 read with Notifications 276/92-Cus. and 59/87-Cus. At the time of assessment of Bill of Entry, the subject items were classified under Heading 8419.90 on the basis of observations of the expert A.O. The benefit of Notification No. 276/92 was allowed; however, benefit under Notification 59/87 was disallowed. The importer filed an appeal before the Collector of Customs (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed is deemed to be an application for refund of duty. Further, it is submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals), by Order dated 22nd June, 1995, has allowed benefit of Notification No. 59 of 1987 and also granted refund of duty as prayed for. 4. The concept of refund of illegally collected amount has undergone evolutionary changes during the course of time. The present law has brought two concepts under Section 27 of the Customs Act - (i) The statutory time limit provided under the law, having a legislation sanction, cannot be transgressed by the judiciary. The Supreme Court has affirmed in its various judgments that Court should not ask the executives to do something, which is provided in the statute; and (ii) The law of unjust enrichment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whereunder certain documents as mentioned in the provisions and as required by the authorities concerned are to be submitted. This has been done much later and beyond the period prescribed. 6. The other objection of the appellants is that they have paid the duty under protest. There is no evidence for the same. There shall be specific protest either endorsed in the Bill of Entry or by way of separate letter. The assessment is not provisional as alleged by the appellants. 7. The Commissioner (Appeals) also applied the test of the ratio of Mafatlal case in the impugned Order. 8. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merits in the appeal filed by M/s. Zauri Agro Chemicals Ltd., and consequently we dismiss the same. (Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
