2007 (4) TMI 471

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... This appeal has been preferred against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 6-9-06, upholding the order in original by which the claims filed by the appellant were rejected. The authorities below have held that both the refund claims were filed by the noticee beyond six months from the date of payment/debit of duty disputed and, therefore, they are time barred. The learned Assistant Com .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... te of assessment , which was 23-1-04. 3. Though the learned counsel initially referred to the decision of this Tribunal in PSI Data Systems v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore reported in 1997 (91) E.L.T. 695, in which it was held that the relevant date for the warehoused goods was the actual date of clearance of goods from the warehouse. However, on noticing that the ratio of this decision .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... und application could have been made, before the expiry of six months from the date of payment of duty on 23-1-04. Therefore, computing the period of six months from that date, the refund claim was time-barred as rightly held by the authorities below. Further more, as held by the Supreme Court in Priya Blue Industries, once the order of assessment was passed, the duty was payable by that order and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X