1994 (3) TMI 95

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ies on business as manufacturer of commercial vehicles. The company imported spares by Air and in respect of imported consignment, Bill of Entry for home consumption was filed on July 14, 1982. The consignment was cleared on payment of customs duty of Rs. 55,317.32. The company subsequently realised that the value mentioned in the Bill of Entry has been incorrectly declared in Deutsche Marks as ag .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... filing the Bills of Entry was factually incorrect. Mr. Shroff, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that excess duty was paid due to the clerical mistake and once the Department has no dispute that excess amount was paid then there should be no difficulty in directing refund of the excess amount. Mr. Shroff submitted that the bar under Section 27 of the Customs Act is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... consignment was used in the company itself and the burden of excess duty paid was not transferred to third party. Secondly, the amount of the refund sought is so negligible that no worthwhile purpose would be served by remitting the matter back to the Asstt. Collector after a passage of more than 12 years from the date of payment of excess duty. For these reasons, in our judgment, it would be app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X