1988 (5) TMI 250

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Respondent. [Order per : K. Gopal Hegde, Member (J)].  - This appeal arises out of and is directed against order-in-appeal bearing No. S/49-125/83M dated 11-7-1983 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay. 2. The appellant has not chosen to file the order-in-original. 3. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assistant Collector, rejecting the appellants' ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....refund application was made within six months from the payment of duty made in respect of replacement parts and, therefore, the authorities below were not correct in holding that their claim is barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act. It was urged that the replacement parts were supplied free of cost and, therefore, no duty was to be levied on the replaced parts. 6. Shri Prabhu, appearing fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n parts defective and then entered correspondence with the supplier. It appears the supplier replaced the defective parts free of charge. But then, the appellants cleared the replaced parts on payment of duty. It is the duty which the appellants sought refund on the ground that they were supplied free of cost and the earlier parts supplied were defective. 9. If the appellants were not liable to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of duty. But then, there was no refund claim at all in respect of defective parts stated to have been received by the appellant. The refund was sought of the duty paid in respect of replacement parts. This claim was within time. Both the authorities were not correct in holding that this claim was barred under Section 27. But then, the refund claim itself is not sustainable in law. The appellants w....