1982 (12) TMI 206

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r. D.R., for Respondents. ORDER [Shri B.B. Gujral, Vice-President; D.N. Lal, Member (Tech); Smt. V.S. Rama Devi, Member (Jud.)]. - The present appeal had been filed against the order No. C. 18 AP/124/1979 dated 3-5-1980 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras. 2.  The facts in short are that the appellants imported a consignment of urea in bulk and in the absence of comp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0.35% of the C&F value of the goods and not 0.50% as had been adopted by the Customs House. Their appeal was rejected on the ground that they had shifted their stand with regard to the inspection charges and this amounted to a fresh claim having been made for differential duty and was, therefore, hit by the limitation under Sec. 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is against this order that the Food C....