1984 (1) TMI 203

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay; wherein, he confirmed the Order-in-original No. S.3-98/1981 GS, dated 21-4-1981, passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay. The Assistant Collector in his order held that the refund claim made by the appellants, namely: M/s. H.A.L. Ltd., Lucknow was time barred, since it had been made after the expiry of the prescribed period of 6 months from the date of payment of duty. The duty was paid on 27-6-1980 while the claim for refund was made on 28-3-1981. The question whether the refund claim was time barred or not has again been raised by the appellants in the said revision application, which has been transferred to the Tribunal and is now being considered as appeal. 2.  Sq. Leader (....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the Assistant Collector of Customs which were in accordance with interpretation made by the said Asstt. Collector of Customs. He also produced copies of the orders issued by the Assistant Collector to this effect to show that less charge demands were made after the expiry of 6 months but within the period of one year and were actually made and confirmed by the Customs' authorities. 3.  Shri K.V. Kunhikrishnan, learned Departmental Representative while referring to Section 27(ia) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter Act) argued that the imports in question were made by M/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and not by the Government, which is only a Government owned Company and not Government. As such, imports made by it cannot be treate....