9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner(Appeals) has recorded a categorical finding in relation to the plea of the Appellant that what have been collected from them satisfy the definition of 'duty' as prescribed under Section 2(15) of the Customs Act, 1962, hence the refund of the same is governed by the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. He has observed that since it is not a case of collection of duty under the provision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls between August, 2007 and April, 2008. It is their claim that they have paid excess export duty as there was short shipment of export goods. Consequently, they filed refund claims on 28th August, 2008 and 29/10/2008, admittedly, after six months from the date of payment of duty. The refund claims were rejected on the ground of time bar. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt shipment of goods exported, therefore, refund claim ought to have been filed within the time limit prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. He submits that any refund arising out of excess payment of duty under the Customs Act, ought to be governed by the provisions contained for refund in the Customs Act, 1962. He submits that this Tribunal being creature of the the statute, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , hence the provisions of Section 27 of Customs Act,. 1962 is applicable to the present refund claims in view of the principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries' case (supra). We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant being devoid of merit, accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Operative part of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
