2003 (3) TMI 433

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]. -  The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the notice issued to the appellant under Section 28 of the Act, demanding duty alleged to have been short paid is barred by limitation or not. 2. The facts in dispute are as follows. The appellant had registered contract with the Bombay Customs House under the Project Import Regulations, 1986 i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of six months from the relevant date, such relevant date being the date on which the provisional assessment was finalised. Neither of these authorities has accepted this contention. 4. Representative of the appellant raises the argument before me adding in addition, that even if it is accepted that the date of sanction of the refund of the security deposit, the demand is still barred by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n to the person concerned [CC, Bombay v. Presto Works - 1987 (28) E.L.T. 469 (Tribunal)]. I have noted the argument of the representative of the appellant that the refund of the security deposit is in no way an act of adjustment of duties after finalisation of provisional assessment, the deposit itself is given even prior to any import. Even assuming in favour of the department that the date of re....