9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (8) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... um of Rs. 9,54,983.42 p., as detailed thereof in paragraph 7 of the writ petition on the ground that the order passed by the Respondent No. 2, the Assistant Collector of Customs, is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the impugned orders have been passed by the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively with total non-application of mind. 2. It is contended that the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 failed to appreciate that the period of limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not applicable in the instant case and the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 ought to have held that the provision of Section 27 of the Customs Act cannot apply to such payments. 3. By looking at the impugned orders it appears that an applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, from the date of payment of duty; Provided that the limitation of one year or six months, as the case may be, shall not apply where any duty has been paid under protest. 6. Admittedly, in the instant case, no duty has been paid under protest. The question does not apply for one year where the goods have been imported in terms of Clause (a). This case is well covered by the situation as covered by Section 27(l)(b) of the Customs Act. 7. Mr. Chatterjee has further drawn the attention of this Court to a decision reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 298 (Cal.) (Dilichand Shreelal v. Collector of Central Excise and Others). The point was considered as to the duty paid under mistake of law - the theory of unjust enrichment not applicable to the cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one should not get entangled in the cobweb of procedures but do substantial justice. The above requirements in the above case have been satisfied and, therefore, the direction of the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales tax for refund of the amount to the dealer and affirmed by the High Court was considered. 10. In the said case there was no consideration of the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act under any stretch of imagination. 11. Mr. Chatterjee has also drawn the attention of this Court to a decision reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J), Madras, P. 630 (Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras and Others v. Premraj and Ganapatraj and Co. P. Ltd.). In the said case there was the consideration of refund of duty under writ. There was al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
