9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. This appeal has been filed against the OIA No. 16/2005 (H-II) Cus. dated 23-3-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals-II), Hyderabad. 2. The appellants imported certain goods for the period from January 2001 to March 2001 and paid provisional Anti Dumping Duty as per the relevant notification. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter, the Assistant Commissioner refunded the amount due on 2-7-2004 after 35 months and 16 days of the receipt of the refund claim. The appellant requested the Assistant Commissioner to pay the interest for delay in payment of refund of the duty in terms of Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the payment of interest. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been granted under Section 27. The contention of the Advocate is that Section 27A is linked to Section 27. If the duty ordered to be refunded under Section 27 is not refunded within three months from the date of receipt of refund claim, Revenue is liable to pay interest. It is not necessary for Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 to specifically extend the provisions of the Customs Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. We hold that Section 27A is consequential to Section 27. Wherever refund under Section 27 is granted, 27A automatically follows. The fact that Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was amended only on 10-9-2004 is immaterial. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
