9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26-8-1996, while assessing the duty, exchange rate was wrongly taken as 1 Australian dollar of Rs. 28.23 against Austrian Shilling of Rs. 3.42. This resulted in over payment of duty. The appellant preferred a refund claim of only Rs. 1,71,426/- due to calculation mistake, as they did not take into consideration the excess payment in regard to their CVD portion of the duty levied. However by their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellate authority for the refund in accordance with the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals). The claim was rejected by the lower authority on the ground that it is time-barred. The amount involved is Rs. 1,06,070/- against this order the appellant went in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), once again this time a different Commissioner who held that the letter dated 7-4-98 where the refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ginal authority instead of granting the refund as per the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected it on the ground that it is hit by limitation. In the second round of litigation the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this order of the lower authority. 4. I find that when once it is held by one Commissioner (Appeals) that a refund is admissible and is not time-barred it is not proper on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
