9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. The appellants had imported certain components for Auto Cone Winders . The vessel carrying the goods had arrived at Chennai port on 26-5-1998 and had to be anchored at an outer point due to Tug Masters strike. The vessel got entry inwards only after midnight of 1/2 June 98. Though the Bill of Entry had been filed earlier, the goods became chargeable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. We are not inclined to keep this old appeal pending any longer. Accordingly, we take it up for disposal. 3. We have examined the records and have found that the subject assessment was not provisional. It is submitted by Ld. SDR that the assessment was final and that the refund claim was filed without challenging it. He also reiterates the findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to force. The proviso to Section 15(1) of the Customs Act lays down that any Bill of Entry filed prior to the date of entry inward of the vessel would be deemed to have been filed on the said date. The main provisions of Section 15(1) lay down that duties of customs would be levied at such rate as are applicable on the date of filing of Bill of Entry. These provisions constrained the lower authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich they were not responsible. We are, therefore, of the view that the above maxim the law does not compel a person to do the impossible) would clearly apply to this case. In the result, the appellants were not liable to pay SAD on the goods. In this view of the matter, we hold that the appellants are eligible for the refund, subject, of course, to evidence against the bar of unjust enrichment, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
