https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344345 The Court upheld the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision that the importer was entitled to a refund claim even though it was made beyond the limitation period under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court agreed that the encashment of the Bank Guarantee was not towards the duty amount but was a form of security, entitling the importer to restitution. The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the importer complied with the conditions of Notification No.110/95 and was entitled to the concessional rate of duty. en-us Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Nov 2017 17:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344345 The Court upheld the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision that the importer was entitled to a refund claim even though it was made beyond the limitation period under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court agreed that the encashment of the Bank Guarantee was not towards the duty amount but was a form of security, entitling the importer to restitution. The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the importer complied with the conditions of Notification No.110/95 and was entitled to the concessional rate of duty. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344345