9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner could not have submitted his application. Therefore, considering this date, it cannot be said that the application of the petitioner was barred by limitation in view of Section 27(4) of the Act. – refund can not be rejected. - C/586/2008-SM - 184/2009-SM(BR)(PB), - Dated:- 10-2-2009 - Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) Shri A.K. Mishra, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri Sansar Chand, DR, for the Respondent. [Order].- This is an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. CC(A)/Cus/ICD/PPG/D-11/162/2008/2020 dated 29-4-2008. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts in brief are as follows:- (a) The appellant filed a Bill of Entry dated 23-8-2006 for a Gasket Cylinder Head in "1 pallet an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without payment of duty. The entire amount deposited by them, therefore, is not towards any duty and the same should be refunded to them unconditionally. Learned Consultant also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in United News of India v. Union of India -2004 (168) E.L.T. 442 (Del.). 5. Learned DR submits that admittedly the duty amount has been paid on 26-8-2006 in pursuance of the original assessment. Since the claim has been made after six months, the same is time-barred as held by the original authority and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. This is a peculiar case. The appellant ordered for certain quantity of the goods and based on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there is no such provision. Therefore, when the amount was paid in anticipation of arrival of goods, it was to be just credited in the name of the payer, and, the recipient would be in the capacity of a trustee. He can appropriate the required amount only on importation of goods and not otherwise. 9. In the instant case, only 51 bales were delivered to the petitioner and, therefore, it was open for the Revenue to deduct the amount of duly on the goods, namely, 51 bales entered for home consumption from the amount deposited by the petitioner to that extent only. It was the duty of the respondent to return the balance amount to the petitioner. The cause of action for demanding customs duty would arise only after 51 bales were imported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
