1988 (4) TMI 65

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntervailing duty in respect of these consignments. According to the petitioners, countervailing duty was not payable and hence they paid countervailing duty under protest and cleared the goods. 2. The petitioners, thereafter, filed refund claims for refund of countervailing duty in November, 1977 and January, 1978. Eleven such refund claims were filed. By a common order dated 1st March 1978, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion applications dated 14th January, 1981. These revision applications were rejected under the order of 2nd December, 1982 on the ground that the claims are time barred. Hence, the present petition. The particulars of six refund claims which have been rejected including the amount of countervailing duty of which refund is sought are annexed as Ex. 'I' to the petition. 5. The order of rejection w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g those refunds on the part of the petitioners. These delays in my view are not such as to defeat the claim of the petitioners. The countervailing duty was collected without any authority of law and hence the petitioners are entitled to claim the refund of the same. In such a situation the question of unjust enrichment does not arise. The Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X