9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal refund claim which was filed on 6-5-91 in respect of the Bill of Entry assessed on 9-11-90 the impugned order have been passed. In the bill of entry the item was described as signal generators and in terms of the catalogue produced before the Original authorities which was assessed under sub-heading 8543.20 at the rate of 110% + 45% + 25% + 5%. In the refund claim the assessee claimed the benefit under Notification No. 134/86 at the rate of CVD 15% + 5% and for assessment under sub-heading 8543.80. However, subsequently they again filed an amendment to their claim on 10-12-97 seeking the item for classification as an Industrial X-Ray Generator falling under sub-heading 9022.19. The Commissioner (Appeals), in the impugned brief order, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plification of the original claim but was on different grounds and on separate facts and was received by the competent authority after the expiry of time limit under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 and has rightly, therefore, been treated as a fresh claim and as being barred by limitation. Even the Collector (Appeals) could not, as a statutory authority, transgress the limitation prescribed in the statute as already held by the Supreme Court in the case of Miles India (supra) as well as in Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Doaba Cooperative Sugar Mills (supra)." 2. Appearing for the Revenue, the ld. DR relies on the written submission wherein it is contended that the refund claim was submitted on 10-12-91. The importer's subseque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the catalogue as it was found to be an X-Ray equipment for classification under Chapter Heading 90. Therefore, there is no fresh ground made out to be treated as a fresh claim and the claim has not been filed after a period of six months and therefore to be held as time bar. He relied on the following judgments. 1. 1990 (50) E.L.T. 633 (T) - Associated Millers (P) Ltd. v. CC. 2. 1992 (62) E.L.T. 41 (T) - J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CC. 3. 1992 (61) E.L.T. 315 (T) - CC v. Lakshman Isola Ltd. 4. 1984 (15) E.L.T. 186 (T) - Cynamid India Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay 5. 1992 (59) E.L.T. 279 (T) - CCE v. Frozen Foods P. Ltd. 6. 1984 (17) E.L.T. 368 (T) - CCE, Kanpur v. West Glass Works, Firozabad 7. 1985 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent is barred by time or as to whether claim was only a clarificatory one. Ld. Consultant pleaded that the department had examined the item in terms of the catalogue and declaration made in the Bill of Entry and that the Department has not sought for re-examination of the entire matter. However, there is no material available before us to look into the issue. The ld. DR is unable to produce the records on account of the fact that the Assistant Commissioner by her letter dated 21-1-2002 has stated that the original records are not traceable. For examining the question of time bar, we need the original records. It is but proper that the issue is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to re-examine the question of time bar of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
