9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (6) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous metals. Pursuant to contracts arrived at between the petitioners and foreign suppliers during October 1979 and February 1980, the foreign suppliers shipped diverse quantities of goods, the total of which was 733.212 metric tons. The goods were shipped by different steamers and upon importation, the petitioners filed 26 bills of entries for clearance for home consumption. The goods were liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lculation of the amounts, the petitioners were entitled to the refund of Rs. 2,20,132.86 in respect of duty paid in respect of short landing. 3. The petitioners filed refund applications on March 1, 1982 furnishing requisite particulars. It is also required to be stated that the petitioners had paid duty on June 20, 1981 under protest. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, by impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect. The petitioners paid the duty under protest and subsequently filed refund applications. The refund application could not have been thrown out on the ground of bar of limitation under Section 27 of the Act for more than one reason. In the first instance, when the duty was paid under protest the bar of limitation is not attracted. Shri Mehta is justified in relying upon decision of one of us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be remitted back. The submission is correct and deserves acceptance. 5. Accordingly, rule is made absolute and the impugned order passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs on April 8, 1982 and identical orders passed in respect of other bills of entry are set aside and the Assistant Collector is directed to re-examine the applications for refund for the purpose of ascertaining the claim to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
