9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. - As per facts on records, the appellant imported aluminium scrap and filed a bill of entry on 5-1-2010. The total customs duty to the extent of Rs. 2,33,713/- were paid whereas the actual duty payable was Rs. 1,54,153/-. The appellant paid the higher amount of Customs duty on 6-1-2010. 2. Subsequently the mistake was detected by the appellant and they wrot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntry and as such, the period of limitation would start running from the date of said order, in terms of provisions of Rule 2.7(4) (sic). 4. I have heard both the sides duly represented by Shri M.S. Bhatia, learned advocate for the appellant and Shri Bharat Bhushan, and Ms. Renu Jagdev, learned ARs appearing for the Revenue. The facts are not in dispute. The duty was admittedly paid on 6-1-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellate authority. Appellate Tribunal or any court, the limitation of one year or six months as the case may be shall be computed from the date of such judgment. As such, I find force in the appellants contention that the period of six months shall start running from the date of order of reassessment. Revenue cannot take the benefit of its own action, in late passing of reassessment order a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment order. The claim having been filed within a period of one month from the order of reassessment. I am of the view that the refund claim cannot be held to be barred by limitation in terms of provisions of Section 27. 6. Apart from the above, I also find that if the order of assessment is under challenge, the assessee is not entitled to claim refund in terms of law declared in the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
