9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Notification; the Divisional Engineer cleared the goods on payment of duty by challans dated 16.06.2005 and 27.05.2005 without claiming any benefit of Notification. On being pointed out by CAG during the course of checking of the records, the appellant filed refund application on 21.06.2006. The Adjudicating Authority after following due process of law rejected the refund claim holding that the refund application has been filed after period of one year from payment of the duty; will be covered by pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 paragraph No. 10 & 11 from the Order-in-Appeal. 10. The rival contentions have received my detailed and careful consideration. The circumstances of the case render it unnecessary for going into the merits of the case. i.e. whether the 'Rubber clam equipment ' imported by the appellants' vide Bills of entry' nos. 801542/25.02.2005 and 801790/14.06.2005 for The Janjhavathi Reservoir project. Both the bills of entry were finally assessed on. merits and the goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 the contemplation of law does not vest in me the authority to extend the time limit for filing refund claim prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, I am constrained to hold the claim of the appellants for refund of duty paid under the two bills of 'entry in question as barred by limitation. The above stated factual matrix and the provisions of Section 27 of the Custom Act, 1962 would clearly apply in the case in hand and we have to hold that Impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
