Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (2) TMI 79

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uary, 1962, as amended from time to time. Because of a mistake law mutually entertained by petitioner and the Assistant Collector of Customs, Additional Duty was illegally, recovered. Petitioner realised the error pursuant to the judgment of Pendse, J. in Writ Petition No 1808 of 1982. This judgment was delivered on 12th August, 1986. Petitioner got knowledge of the judgment on or about 25th August, 1986. On 6th October, 1986, petitioner applied for refund. This application was rejected by respondent No. 3 on the ground that the claim was barred by time vis-a-vis Section 27 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The erroneous order was contrary to the judgment of Pendse, J. aforementioned. Hence the petition for refund of the amount paid together wi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... itional Duty. Lastly, even if petitioner was to get a direction for a refund, it should be subject to verification of the claim on the basis of production of relevant documents, as it was not uncommon for the Customs Authorities to come across Spurious claims. In this case itself, petitioner had made some double claims. 4. Excepting for two issues which I will consider below, the other defences raised by respondents have to be negatived as being covered by Pendse, J.'s decision in Writ Petition No. 1808 of 1982 and my decision in Writ Petition No. 2228 of 1986, decided on 15th January, 1987, along with a number of other petitions. The two points which require consideration are :- (i) Whether the goods imported could not be said to be a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e and address of the manufacturer and the names and quantities of the drugs". Now, so far as this requirement of the Rule is concerned, the Bill of Entry at Ex. 'E' enumerates in Column 2 the commodity being imported and the name and address of the manufacturer. The commodity is described as 'Sorbitol 70 PC Liquid USP'. The country of manufacture is given out to be France. The name of the manufacturer is Roquette Freres. The batch number, date of manufacture, etc., ete. are all set out in Column 2. The contention is that those particulars are not sufficient, for the importer had further to establish compliance with the prescribed standard - such standard being that set out in the Second Schedule to the Drug Act. There is no merit in this co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it did not mean an automatic exemption from Additional Duty recoverable under Section 3 of the C.T.A. This point was considered by Pendse, J. in Writ Petition No. 2840 of 1986, decided on 18th December, 1986, and, negatived in these words :- "Finally Shri Sethna submitted that even if Central Excise duty is not payable, still additional duty of customs can be levied, and in support of the submission reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court In Khandelwal Metal Engineering Works and Another v. Union of India and Others. In my judgment, it is not necessary to examine this question, because even assuming that additional duty of customs can be levied, the question which arises in the present case is whether such duty has been .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pleads that the relief to be granted, require respondents to deposit the amount of refund in Court, as otherwise suitors succeeding against the Customs, find it virtually impossible to get relief. There may be some substance in this grievance of the petitioner. Nonetheless, there are measures available to suitors to execute orders passed in their favour. Therefore, no special directions, as solicited by the petitioner, are called for. Hence the order. ORDER Respondents to pay unto petitioner the Additional Duty wrongly recovered from him in respect of the consignment figuring in this case, subject to verification. This payment shall be made within eight weeks from today. Failure to pay the amount within the specified time will subject r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates