https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256826 Imported tunnel boring machines were held to fall under a specific customs classification rather than the broader project-import heading, so the Project Import Regulations, 1986 did not require contract registration for the exemption under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The refund claim was treated as money paid by mistake where no duty was actually leviable, so Section 27 of the Customs Act did not govern limitation. Instead, the claim was tested on the principle of repayment of money received by mistake and was found to be within time under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, with time running from discovery of the mistake. en-us Tue, 17 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256826 Imported tunnel boring machines were held to fall under a specific customs classification rather than the broader project-import heading, so the Project Import Regulations, 1986 did not require contract registration for the exemption under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The refund claim was treated as money paid by mistake where no duty was actually leviable, so Section 27 of the Customs Act did not govern limitation. Instead, the claim was tested on the principle of repayment of money received by mistake and was found to be within time under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, with time running from discovery of the mistake. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 17 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256826