9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not refuse to refund - Since payment without any valid reason - respondents are directed to refund all amounts paid - 1366 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 3-5-2010 - Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri R.C. Chaudhury and Miss Saswati Joardar, Advocates, for the Petitioner. Ms. Anwara Qureshi, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Judgment]. - The Court : The petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iling duty under protest, and then filed WP No. 2845 of 2000 under Art. 226. 3. By an order dated October 16, 2001 the circular dated May 10, 2000 and all steps taken by the customs on the basis thereof were quashed. The special leave petition before the Supreme Court was dismissed as withdrawn. Under the circumstances, the petitioners filed application under s. 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as submitted that the authority to whom the appellate authority remitted the matter has not given his decision. According to her, it is difficult to say that the petitioners are not entitled to refund, for the circular in terms of which countervailing duty was demanded was quashed by the court. She, however, has disputed the petitioners, claim that they are entitled to interest from the date of de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cular was quashed by this court, the respondents incurred an unqualified obligation to refund the amounts paid for countervailing duty. 8. It was not a case of erroneous deposit, but a deposit of duty in response to a show cause notice under protest. Taking the plea of limitation the respondents could not refuse to refund the amounts paid. Since they withheld payment without any valid reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
