9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 cannot be found fault with - The appeal filed by assessee in respect of into-bond Bills of Entry No. 1546 deal with in O-I-O No. 73/2006, dated 2-6-2006 holding eligibility of refund of Rs. 5,75,256/- and O-I-O No. 72/2006, dated 2-6-2006 finalizing Bills of Entry Nos. 204006, 204167, 204927, 205181, 205776, 205883, 206378, 206717, 207187, 207460, 207711, 209274 and 210446 involving refund of Rs. 44,45,425/- have to be held as final and in respect of these two refund claims, appeal is rejected and appellants are held to be ineligible for refund on the ground that the refund claims were filed beyond 6 months from the relevant date – Decided against Assessees. Bar of Limitation - Entitlement for Refund of Duty – Section 27 Customs Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms Act, 1962 would be applicable to refund claims arising on account of finalization of provisional assessment under Section 18. Out of 10 refund claims filed by the appellants, 5 claims were admitted and sanctioned and 5 claims were rejected on the ground that they were received after 6 months from the date of receipt of order finalizing the provisional assessment and therefore time-barred. 2. This matter was heard on 29-5-2013 and at that time after noticing that the final assessment orders relating to the Bills of Entry in this dispute were not available, the learned counsel for the appellant was requested to produce the same and accordingly matter was adjourned. 3. Today when the matter was called, the learned counsel produced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olving refund of Rs. 44,45,425/- have to be held as final and in respect of these two refund claims, the appeal is rejected and appellants are held to be ineligible for refund on the ground that the refund claims were filed beyond 6 months from the relevant date. 5. Coming to the other three refund claims, the authority finalizing the provisional assessment did not specifically indicate that the refund is subject to the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CC v. Indian Oil Corporation [2012-TIOL-52-HC-DEL-CUS = 2012 (282) E.L.T. 368 (Del.)] and the decision of Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of CC v. Hindalco Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
