9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 63X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund), Customs House, Madras to refund the sums of Rs. 73,229/-, Rs. 82,624.64, Rs. 81,054.84, Rs. 78,944.19 and Rs. 1,90,237/- respectively collected in excess without jurisdiction or without the authority of law in respect of Bill of Entry Cash Nos. D. 922 dated 19-10-1984, C. 735 dated 26-6-1984, C. 638 dated 18-10-1985, D. 1334 dated 23-1-1986 and D 1535 dated 1986 respectively. 3. So far as the W.P. No. 15054 of 1992 is concerned, what the petitioner submits as his case in the affidavit filed in support of the said writ petition is that the petitioner firm imported consignments of PVC Electrical Insulation Tape under different Bills of Entry, the assessable values of which are respectively Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 90.30 which was rejected by the Assistant Collector on ground that the application was not received within six months from the date of payment of the duty and hence barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962; that the appellate authority, the Collector of Customs and Central Excise also dismissed the appeal relying on the judgment of the Apex Court delivered in Miles India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.) = 1985 ECR 289 (SC); that the order of rejection is arbitrary and without jurisdiction and infringes the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution; that further the collection of the duty is without authority of law and the respondents have no jurisdiction t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said sums alleged to have been paid in excess they are hereby jointly heard and this common order is passed. 7. In the counter affidavit, besides denying the averment contained in the writ petition, it would also be specifically mentioned that the Bill of Entry No. 922 dated 19-10-1984 belongs to a different importer; that as the claim for refund itself has not been filed with respect to the four bills of entry, no question of rejection of claim would arise; that since there is no reference or any speaking order passed by the Assistant Collector of Cusoms, filing an appeal is improper; that the claim has to be filed within six months from the date of payment of the duty; that if the duty is paid under protest on the order of the Assistant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Cusotms - (a) in the case of any import made by any individual for his personal use or by Government or by any educational research or charitable institution or hospital, before the expiry of one year; (b) in any other case, before the expiry of six months, from the date of payment of duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty, in such form and manner as may be specified in the regulations : PROVIDED FURTHER that the limitation of one year or six months, as the case may be, shall not apply where any duty and interest, if any paid on such duty has been paid under protest." 10. From the above, it is relevant to note that the petitioner, being a limited company, wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
