1982 (4) TMI 281

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l hearing. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners manufacture I.C. engines. They preferred a refund claim of ₹ 613.47 on the ground that this represented the duty paid on an element of ₹ 3,865/- representing the value of extra accessories included in the value of the engine while filing the price list and this element representing the cost of the accessories ought not hav .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h Rule 173J provided for a time period of one year for filing the refund claim. They have urged that it is the period of limitation prescribed under the rules as they existed on the date when the payment occurred that should be relevant for computing the time limit for filing the refund claim. Viewed this way the refund claim which was filed within one year from the date of payment of duty was not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X