2001 (7) TMI 140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ently, to direct the respondent to refund the amounts covered by impugned order with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of payment. 2.All these writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner challenging the refusal of refund of differential duty of landing charges by the proceedings of the fourth respondent dated 16-7-1993, which was also confirmed by third respondent appellate authority, by pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be very tiny and entertaining such claim would only increase the workload of the respondents. 4.Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner has filed these writ petitions challenging the said refusal to refund the notional landing charges on the ground that when actual landing charges could be ascertained by the Port Trust authorities, there is no justification to levy notional landing ch .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... harges and the notional landing charges and remitted the matter to the fourth respondent with a direction to dispose of the claim application of the petitioner for refund of the differential duty on landing charges, on merits, of course, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, afresh, provided the petitioner satisfies that the liability had not passed on to some one else. 7.Since the fact .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X