9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of the petitioners. 2. The petitioners imported liquid paraffin by two separate consignments in March 1977. The petitioners presented bill of entry and paid customs duty under Tariff Item 27.10(1) at the rate of 40% and auxiliary duty at the rate of 5%. The petitioners claimed that the collection of countervailing duty by the Customs authorities was not justified under Excise Tariff Item No. 11A. The Department did not accept the claim and as the petitioners were keen to clear the goods, the countervailing duty/additional duty at the rate of 20% ad valorem and Rs. 190/- per metric ton was paid by the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter filed two separate refund applications on February 1, 1979 and claimed refund of sum of Rs. 1,08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India. Though the authorities constituted under the Customs Act are bound by the provisions of Section 27, the defence is not available to the Department when in writ jurisdiction it is established that the recovery of duty was in violation of law. It is now well established that the Department cannot retain duty which was recovered without any authority of law. Shri Rege, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, submitted that there is nothing on record to establish that duty was recovered without any authority of law. The learned counsel invited our attention to the observations made by CEGAT to the following effect: "From the grounds of revision, it is not possible to make out how the collection was without authority o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erments made in the petition to that effect. The Department has not cared to file return inspite of pendency of this petition for last over eight years and have not chosen to controvert the claim made by the petitioners. Secondly, the counsel for the petitioner pointed out that CEGAT has recorded several decisions holding that import of Liquid Paraffin does not attract countervailing duty under Item 11A of the Central Excise Tariff. The CEGAT recorded its decision by relying upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court. It is therefore obvious that the three authorities were fully conscious that levy of countervailing duty was without any authority of law and therefore proceeded to reject the revision application only on the ground of limita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
