https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348578 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant. It held that the duty deposit made under the first bill of entry was not subject to the limitation under section 27(1) of the Customs Act, as no taxable event occurred due to a mistake by the Customs House Agent. The Tribunal emphasized that the subsequent duty payment on clearance of the goods did not constitute excise duty but was a mistaken deposit that the Revenue could not retain. The appellant was granted relief, and the initial duty deposit was ordered to be refunded. en-us Fri, 07 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Mar 2019 15:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348578 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant. It held that the duty deposit made under the first bill of entry was not subject to the limitation under section 27(1) of the Customs Act, as no taxable event occurred due to a mistake by the Customs House Agent. The Tribunal emphasized that the subsequent duty payment on clearance of the goods did not constitute excise duty but was a mistaken deposit that the Revenue could not retain. The appellant was granted relief, and the initial duty deposit was ordered to be refunded. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 07 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348578