9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are challenging the legality of the order dated May 27, 1982 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Bombay, rejecting the application of refund of duty paid by the petitioners. The facts giving rise to the passing of this order are as follows. 2. The petitioners imported Lucop Step and Repeat Machine and the Bill of Entry was filed on November 29, 1980. The Customs aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 2,67,724.23. The application for refund was rejected by the Assistant Collector holding that it was barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act. On merits, the Assistant Collector merely observed that the assessment order holding that the machine was liable to duty under Tariff Item No. 90.10 was correct and this order of the Assistant Collector is under challenge. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty was paid by the petitioner under mistake of law, and it is now well-settled that such duty cannot be retained by the Department. Shri Rege, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, strenuously urgeo that the petitioners had remedy to file an appeal against the assessment of duty under Tariff Item No. 90.10 and if the petitioners did not adopt that remedy, the order had become ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals). In my judgment, the Assistant Collector was clearly in error in rejecting the application of the petitioners. 5. Accordingly, petition succeeds and the order passed by the Assistant Collector rejecting the refund application is set aside and the Assistant Collector is directed to ascertain how much excess duty was recovered in respect of import of Lu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
