9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Sh. Y Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant Sh. Jayanthi Krishna, (Superintendent) for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No. 23/2008 (V-ll) Cus dated 25 09.2008 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of records it transpires that the issue is regarding rejection of refund claims filed by the appellant herein on the ground of limitation. 4. Appellant is a state government department and imported a rubber dam from Austria for installation across a river as part of Janjhavathi Reservoir Project during the year 2005. When the goods were imported, they were fully exempted by N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same proposition. 6. On careful consideration of the submission made considered various authorities cited by the Ld. Counsel, we find that the appeal filed by the appellant herein has no merits. 7. We find there is no dispute as to the fact that the refund claims application has filed beyond the period of limitation. The appellant herein being a state government, should have, before discharging the custom duty considered the all exemptions for the goods imported by them. We find that there is no protest registered by the appellant against the discharge of duty by them, which would mean that they were convinced duty liability arises. We find that the 1st Appellate Authority was correct in recording the following findings paragra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n light of the fact that these goods are imported in public interest, I am prepared to consider the possibility of the date of filing as 21.06.2007, i.e. the date of the letter of the Executive Engineer, JRP Division, Parvathipuram, for I can go no further, as the contention of the appellants that the duly in question was paid at the instance of the Customs is not substantiated by the material the proceedings. Hence I am constrained to consider the duty payments in question in respect of the two bills of entry, as final payments made without protest. Hence I am constrained to act within the purview of the time limit laid down for filing of refund claims as per provisions of sub-section (1) of section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
