9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (12) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CC(A). We like to notice paras 1 and 2 as also first two sentences of para 3 of the petition to project that though the appellant accepts and does not dispute the basic question that the claim of refund was made beyond the period of limitation but also apparently at no stage contended before the Assistant Collector of Customs that it had sufficient cause for filing such claim late :- 1. We impotted Polyester Films plain/metallised of less than 25 microns in thickness in several consignments. The same were assessed to Customs duty along with additional (countervailing) duty despite the specific exemption available to films in terms of Notification No. 228-Cus. of 2-8-1976, as amended by No. 443-Cus. of 29-11-1976. The claims for refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has been confusion. Consequently, denial of the exemption legitimately due under the subordinate legislation in the form of notifications cannot be brushed aside lightly as errors committed within jurisdiction..... 2. The following portion of para 1 of the CC(A) s order we also like to bring in focus and, is, therefore, reproduced below :- These three different appeals from Consultant Mr. T.V. Krishnamurthy are on behalf of two different clients, Appeal No. 1261 and 1262 of 79R are presented on behalf of client M/s. Indo Japan Lurex Mfg. Co. Appeal No. 1271/79R is presented on behalf of M/s. New Rexole Industries. All the three appeals cover different Bills of Entry each. From the above, we notice that though three different ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof. Since the appellant (when we use this term, we mean `M/s. New Rexol Industries, Bombay only), has made no case either before the Assistant Collector of Customs or before the CC(A) and did not even protest at the time of making payment of duty much less prove its case for condonation for submitting late claim and the same are not projected from the petition, there is no case for the assessee to come out the limitation period as provided in Section 27(1) of the Customs Act. On these facts, we find no case to interfere with the order of the CC(A). Therefore, the appeal is dismissed on the above stated ground itself. 3. Before parting with the case, we like to observe tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
