1993 (6) TMI 82

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n is [Page 468] whether the Assistant Collector of Customs, Refund Department was justified in rejecting the refund application filed by the petitioners on the ground that the exemption sought from payment of duty was not available. Only few facts are required to be stated to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners. The petitioners imported PVC resin which is liable to payment or customs dut .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the second notification. The petitioners claimed advantage of the first notification in respect of import in pursuance of this letters of credit. The claim was denied by the department and the petitioners cleared the goods after payment of duty as contemplated by the second notification. The petitioners thereafter applied for refund of excess duty paid claiming that the petitioners were not lia .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the first exemption notification cannot be withdrawn before March 31, 1981. In view of this judgment of the Division Bench, the petitioners are obviously entitled to claim benefit of the first exemption notification even though the letter of credit was opened after publication of the second notification. Shri Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the petitione .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X