9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnai has come to this Court by way of appeal against the final order passed by the CESTAT in Final Order No. 952 of 2006 dated 11-10-2006 by formulating the following questions of law : 1. Whether the Tribunal is right in not considering the legal issue that there cannot be an order of refund import application and that application should be within the time stipulated in the statute? 2. Whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 62, where any duty is paid provisionally under section 18, the limitation of one year or six months, as the case may be, shall be computed from the date of adjustment of duty after final assessment thereof, in this case, the bill of entry has been finalised and cancellation of bond were done on 22-6-2004 whereas the refund application was filed on 13-1-2005. Thus, it is beyond the period of six m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present case are squarely covered by the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Aristo Spinners Ltd., 2008 (226) E.L.T. 42 (Mad.) = (2008) 4 TNLJ 517 decided by a Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (KRPJ) is a party, relying on the judgment of the Division Bench in which both of us are parties in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Exports) v. M/s. Jraj Export ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, which provides for provisional clearance, and having regard to the enunciation of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited v. Union of India, 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 with reference to Rule 9B held that the provision relating to the refund of excess of the amount collected does not apply to Sections 18 and 27 of the Customs Act. To the same effect is the Bombay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
