https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352577 The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a private limited company seeking a refund of wrongly withheld export duty amounting to Rs. 1,45,39,200. Despite the Customs authorities rejecting the refund application based on the limitation period under Section 27 of the Customs Act, the Court held that the duty paid for a shipment that never occurred should not be subject to the one-year limitation period. The Court emphasized that export duty is applicable upon actual export of goods, not just filing a shipping bill, and ordered the respondent to refund the amount with interest, highlighting the importance of interpreting statutory provisions purposefully. en-us Tue, 05 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Sep 2018 12:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352577 The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, a private limited company seeking a refund of wrongly withheld export duty amounting to Rs. 1,45,39,200. Despite the Customs authorities rejecting the refund application based on the limitation period under Section 27 of the Customs Act, the Court held that the duty paid for a shipment that never occurred should not be subject to the one-year limitation period. The Court emphasized that export duty is applicable upon actual export of goods, not just filing a shipping bill, and ordered the respondent to refund the amount with interest, highlighting the importance of interpreting statutory provisions purposefully. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 05 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352577