9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3, 1986 by the Assistant Collector. This does not mean that the Bill of Entry for the goods for home consumption has to be treated to have been presented on October 9, 1986. Since the Bill of Entry was noted as for home consumption on October 23, 1986 it has to be as presented for that purpose on October 23, 1986. The duty was, therefore, payable on the basis of the rates in force on October 23, 1986. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly held Notifications dated October 6, 1986 were applicable and the appellant was not entitled to refund of duty. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal. In the circumstances we do not consider it necessary to go into the correctness of the view of the Tribunal that the Notifications dated October ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied for refund of the said duty on the ground that the Notifications dated October 6, 1986 were inoperative on October 9, 1986 when the Bill of Entry was originally submitted. The Assistant Collector of Customs, by his order dated January 23, 1987, rejected the said claim for refund made by the appellant. On appeal the Collector of Customs affirmed the order of the Assistant Collector and held that the appellant was not entitled to refund in view of the Notifications dated October 6, 1986. The Collector rejected the contention urged on behalf of the appellant that the Notifications dated October 6, 1986 was not applicable since the vessel containing the goods had entered the Indian waters on October 3, 1986 on the ground that the Bill of En ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1986 and since the Tribunal has found that the Notifications dated October 6, 1986 came into operation on October 13, 1986, the appellant is entitled to refund of the customs duty paid on the basis of the Notifications dated October 6, 1986. The learned counsel has placed reliance on sub-section (5) of Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 which reads as under : "If the proper officer is satisfied that the interests of revenue are not prejudicially affected and that there was no fraudulent intention, he may permit substitution of a Bill of Entry for home consumption for a Bill of Entry for warehousing or vice versa". 3. The submission is that once the substitution is allowed then the substituted Bill of Entry has to be treated as operati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
