https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74096 The appeal against the order-in-appeal rejecting the refund claim of duty on replaced parts was dismissed. The appellant's claim for a refund was based on duty paid on the replaced parts, contending that the refund application was made within the time limit. However, the Member (J) found that duty on the replacement parts was rightly levied and paid, as the duty payment was not dependent on the parts being supplied free of charge. The appellant's failure to notify customs about the defects earlier rendered any claim for refund on the defective parts time-barred. The appeal was rejected, stating that the duty on replacement parts was rightfully paid, and the appellant had no legal basis for a refund. en-us Mon, 16 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Jun 2011 17:06:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74096 The appeal against the order-in-appeal rejecting the refund claim of duty on replaced parts was dismissed. The appellant's claim for a refund was based on duty paid on the replaced parts, contending that the refund application was made within the time limit. However, the Member (J) found that duty on the replacement parts was rightly levied and paid, as the duty payment was not dependent on the parts being supplied free of charge. The appellant's failure to notify customs about the defects earlier rendered any claim for refund on the defective parts time-barred. The appeal was rejected, stating that the duty on replacement parts was rightfully paid, and the appellant had no legal basis for a refund. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 16 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74096