1993 (10) TMI 186

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ants had filed a Reference Application, but as per the directions of this Tribunal in Order NO. RA 300/Cal/1991 dated 19th April, 1991 the present Rectification Application is filed. In this particular case, a refund application was made by the appellants. The same was rejected as time barred by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta. The rejection order was upheld by the Appellate Collector of Customs vide his order No. 1538/1980 dated 25th August, 1980. An appeal was filed before the Tribunal and the same was rejected in terms of our Order No. 307/Cal/89 dated 28-11-1989. 2. In the above-said order, the Tribunal observed that the endorsement written on the Bill of Entry contains a request for making a proper entry of the rep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e even if it is assumed that it was received on 7-7-1979, it was beyond the period of six months. 4. It was next contended by the learned Advocate that the goods have not been received from the foreign suppliers. They are short shipped. Under Section 12 of the Customs Act, it is only the goods which are imported into India, which are liable for duty, but on the assumption that they were received in India, the payment was made. Therefore, in the strict sense, it is not duty and, therefore, the claim does not come within the mischief of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. In order to justify the same, he relied on the following decisions :- (1) 1981 (8) E.L.T. 926 (Bom.) - Indian Dairy Corporation v. Union of India (2)&ems....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... acting under the Act, were justified in disallowing the claim for refund as they were bound by the period of limitation provided therefor under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, learned Counsel for the Appellant sought leave to withdraw the Appeal. We accord them leave to withdraw the Appeal but make it clear that the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal suffers from no infirmity. If really the payment of the duty was under a mistake of law, the appellant may seek recourse to such alternative remedy as it may be advised. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn." 6. Further, in the decision reported in Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. CEGAT 1990 (49) E.L.T. 342, Honourable Calcutta High Court at ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of Appeal filed by them vide their application dated 17-8-1989. I would , however, add that as regards the point mentioned at Serial No. 9 that under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, if any statement in the Bill of Entry is not true, the goods can be reassessed and on reassessment of the sum collected without authority of law not being Customs duty, can be refunded without invoking Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, the actual provision reads as follows :- "17. Assessment of duty. x x x x x  (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, imported goods or export goods may, prior to the examination or testing thereof, be permitted by the proper officer to be assessed to duty on the basi....