TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Refund claims on C.V. duty for silicone oil consignments reviewed under Customs Act.</h1> <h3>In RE: NK. MARATHE & CO., BOMBAY</h3> In RE: NK. MARATHE & CO., BOMBAY - 1981 (8) E.L.T. 301 (G. O. I.) Issues:1. Refund claim of C.V. duty on consignments of silicone oil/silicone fluid.2. Time-barred claims under Sec. 128 and Sec. 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Contention that goods imported are not excisable and time limits should not apply.4. Government's consideration of the claims and reliance on legal provisions.Issue 1: The judgment pertains to a batch of three revision applications concerning refund claims of C.V. duty on silicone oil/silicone fluid consignments. The Government considered the claims and observed that the appeal in one case failed due to limitation under Sec. 128 of the Customs Act, while in the other two cases, the claims were time-barred under Sec. 27(1) of the Act.Issue 2: The delays in filing the refund claims were acknowledged, but the petitioners argued that the goods imported were not excisable, thus contending that the time limits under the Customs Act should not apply. The petitioners relied on Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act to support their claim.Issue 3: The Government noted that the Customs authorities did not assess the merits of the claims in any of the cases. The claims were rejected based on limitation under Sec. 27(1) without delving into the substance of the cases. The petitioners' reliance on Board's tariff advice to justify non-liability to C.V. duty was considered.Issue 4: The Government analyzed the legal arguments presented by the petitioners, emphasizing that the claims were time-barred under the Customs Act. They discussed the historical context of excisability and jurisdiction under the Central Excise Tariff, highlighting changes brought by the introduction of Item 68. The Government upheld the rejection of two revision applications but remanded one back for further consideration due to extenuating factors and condoned delay within the statutory limit.Overall, the judgment addresses the specific circumstances of the refund claims, the application of time limits under the Customs Act, and the interpretation of excisability in relation to the Central Excise Tariff. The Government's decision to reject or remand the revision applications was based on a comprehensive analysis of the legal provisions and historical context surrounding excise classification and jurisdiction.
TaxTMI 