9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (11) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the original petitioner. The petitioner/appellant imported polythene polyols, a chemical between July 1977 and August 1978. The Customs authorities levied duty upon the imported articles under Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff, and the appellant accordingly paid duty. Subsequently, the appellant realised that the duty was payable under Chapter 38 of the Customs Tariff and therefore excess duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of Section 27(1) of the Customs Act was erroneous. It is now well settled that the duty recovered without any authority of law cannot be retained by the authority and the provision for filing application within period of six months from the payment of duty has no application to such a case. It is open for the tax payer to demand back duty which was recovered without authority of law at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that the learned Judge should have directed refund of duty paid between July 1977 and August 1978 and should not have restricted the period only subsequent to April 24, 1978. The submission is correct and deserves acceptance. The judgment of the learned single Judge does not indicate any reason as to why the refund is directed only in respect of duty paid subsequent to April 24, 1978. In ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
