9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 263X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that statutory authorities are bound by the time limit provided by the Statute was approved and confirmed, we do not find any ground to interfere in the present appeal - the limitation prescribed u/s 27 would be applicable in this case - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Appeal No. C/1279/12 - - - Dated:- 29-12-2016 - Shri Raju, Member ( Technical ) Shri K.K. Anand, Advocat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by the lower authorities. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before Tribunal. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that they had filed a refund claim within 6 months from the date of the order of Additional Commissioner confiscating the goods. Thus, it is within limitation. He also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ankit Pulps Boards Pvt. Ltd. 2007 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the appellant has argued that the limitation period should be counted from the date of the order of the Additional Commissioner. I find that there is no authority has been cited for such argument. Learned Counsel has relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ankit Pulps Boards Ltd. (supra). It is seen that the said decision does not deal with the issue of limitation for the purpos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated that the Customs Authorities, acting under the Act, were justified in disallowing the claim for refund as they were bound by the period of limitation provided therefor under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, learned counsel for the Appellant sought leave to withdraw the appeal. We accord their leave to withdraw the appeal but make it clear that the order of the Customs, Excise Gold (C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
