https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200845 The Court held that the plaintiff could maintain the suit in Lucknow for a refund of the advance duty deposit. It concluded that the plaintiff's right to seek a refund in their jurisdiction was supported by an implied agreement. The Court clarified that the time limitation under Section 40 of the Sea Customs Act did not apply as the refund sought was for an unappropriated deposit, not duty paid and appropriated. Additionally, the Court ruled that the unappropriated deposit was refundable, affirming the plaintiff's entitlement to reclaim the amount and dismissing the appeal with costs. en-us Tue, 29 Jan 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 May 2018 14:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200845 The Court held that the plaintiff could maintain the suit in Lucknow for a refund of the advance duty deposit. It concluded that the plaintiff's right to seek a refund in their jurisdiction was supported by an implied agreement. The Court clarified that the time limitation under Section 40 of the Sea Customs Act did not apply as the refund sought was for an unappropriated deposit, not duty paid and appropriated. Additionally, the Court ruled that the unappropriated deposit was refundable, affirming the plaintiff's entitlement to reclaim the amount and dismissing the appeal with costs. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 29 Jan 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200845