9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (4) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prehensible. He has realised a large sum of Rs. 2,63,967.75 p. illegally and is refusing to refund the same on the spacious ground that the Petitioners' application for refund is barred by limitation. 2. The Petitioners in November, 1983 and January, 1984 had imported various consignments of Synthetic Waste. The Customs Department sought to impose countervailing duty on these goods. It being the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 12% p.a. on the guaranteed amount from the date of clearance of the goods till payment in the event of the Petitioners failing in this Writ Petition. The Petitioners through their Counsel further given an undertaking to the Court that they will keep the bank guarantee valid and subsisting three weeks after the final disposal of the Petition. 4. The Petitioners will be at liberty to clear part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the first Respondent made no efforts to refund the amount either to the Petitioners or to their Bankers. In October 1986 the Customs Duty on synthetic waste was raised by nearly 700%. It was no more liable for the Petitioners to clear the goods. They, therefore, on the 13th of October 1986 relinquished their title in terms of Section 23(2) of the Customs Act. The Customs Authorities thereafter a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 588 of 1984 recovered the Bank Guarantee furnished by the Petitioners. This was on the 27th of July 1984. The Petitioners on the 3rd of January 1985 protested and claimed refund. I fail to see how the claim for refund can be termed as barred by limitation. It was still within the period of six months from the date of the realisation of the Bank Guarantee by the first Respondent. But for the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
