2004 (6) TMI 510

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J) (Oral)]. -  All these appeals of the department are against a common order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in favour of the respondents. 2. The appellant is represented by ld. DR. No representation for the respondents despite notice. 3. We have examined the records and heard the SDR. The original authority h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eld that Section 28 was the only remedy legally available to the department for recovery of an amount of customs duty erroneously refunded by the Asst. Collector. This view was taken by the lower appellate authority, relying on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Collector v. Universal Radiators Ltd., reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 222. In the present appeals, it is contended to the effect that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... excluded from the assessable value. Against the latter part of the original authority's order, the Collector passed an order of review under Section 35E and directed the Asst. Collector to file an appeal with the Collector (Appeals). The question considered by the Larger Bench was whether, irrespective of the remedy pursued under Section 35E, the department could recover the duty from the assesse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nvoked for different purposes. Different time limits are, therefore, set out therein. We do not accept the contention that recover of excise duty cannot be made pursuant to an appeal filed after invoking the provisions of Section 35E if the time limit provided in Section 11A has expired. To so read the provisions would be to render Section 35E virtually ineffective, which would be imperssible. ....