9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (6) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen imported into India from Bangladesh or the Republic of Korea or Sri Lanka, from that portion of the duty of customs specified in the First Schedule as was in excess of the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column 4 of the said table. Therefore, according to the Petitioners the rate of duty of Customs was calculated at the rate of Rs. 20/- per kg. less 71/2%. The Petitioners paid accordingly. But doubt was raised by some importers relating to interpretation of words "Rs. 20 per kg. less 71/2%" as to whether the 71/2% was to be treated as 71/2% of Rs. 20 or 71/2% of ad valorem i.e. of the assessable value, CEGAT in CD Appeal No. 463/1985 (D) - (The Collector of Customs, Madras v. M/s. Cortland Exports, Madras) held on 30-9-1985 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that it cannot be granted since 20th September, 1991 in view of amending Act 40 of 1991. Section 27 of Customs Act is pari mataria same as Section 11B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 4. It was inter alia held by the Division Bench in Pfizer Ltd. & Ors. case that for getting benefit of the exemption Notification it is for the assessee to establish that the goods manufactured by him come within the ambit of the said exemption Notification. Further, it is also held that assessee to establish that the conditions which are stipulated in the exemption Notification are compiled with by him and there is no question of any liberal construction to extend the terms and the scope of the exemption Notification, as the Notification is requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and without having that order set aside by a competent court there would be no question of grant of refund, merely on the ground that in some other cases a different view was taken, even if the payment is made under mistake of law. As long as the order which became final stands, the authority cannot grant refund. The court further held that if the application is under Section 27 of the Customs Act, then the authority, being a creation of the statute, must act within the ambit of that provision and if the application is delayed he has no alternative but to reject it as barred by limitation." 6. Further, the question is also concluded by recent decision rendered by Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
