1984 (11) TMI 325

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gnment of Machine and cleared the same under B/E Cash No. 2181 dated 17-9-1979 by paying customs duty of Rs. 4,76,270.59. The suppliers failed to supply the required number of Filter Paper along with the machine. They, however, supplied the short shipped filter paper by a separate consignment and the appellants cleared the said consignment under B/E 943D dated 14-9-1979 after paying customs duty of Rs. 34,503/-. Thereafter the appellants made an application in Form-A for refund of Customs duty paid against B/E 943D dated 14-9-1979. This application was rejected by the Assistant Collector, holding that the goods cleared under B/E 943D have been correctly assessed for duty. No refund is due on this Bill of Entry. He further observed that if a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty and the claim for refund has been rejected illegally. Shri Shah further contended that there is no warrant in law that claim for refund should be made in respect of a particular Bill of Entry. The required particulars had been given in the application for refund. In the circumstances, the authorities below were unjustified in rejecting the refund claim. 6. Shri Gidwani, learned Departmental Representative contended that the refund claim should relate to an assessment order which was passed by an officer of Customs lower in rank than the Assistant Collector of Customs. The claim as put forward by the appellants were in respect of an assessment order covered by B/E 943D dated 14-9-1979. Shri Gidwani contended that there was no shor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, in his order the Assistant Collector has observed : "If any excess payment is made on another Bill of Entry, the refund claim should be filed against that BE." In the application for refund against column 6 Grounds of claim, the appellants have stated as under :- "The item under claim (Filter paper rolls) is supplied free of charge vide suppliers Invoice No. 2560/79 because the value of the item imported has already been included in the Invoice No. 1987/79 (the appraised invoice is not received from Customs) and the Customs duty is recovered for the items vide B/E Cash No. 2181 dated 17-9-79. (The same is forwarded to your office on 8-1-80 in response to your letter No. 1551/S/121/CD/HAL/NK dated 20-12-79). While supplying the m....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by an advocate. Legal niceties would not have been known to the party. But all the same a firm foundation had been laid in the application for refund. I wish the Assistant Collector had taken a helpful attitude. 10. Now coming to the order of the Appellate Collector, he did not reject the appellant's claim on the ground that the claim, for refund was made against an incorrect B/E. He had considered the merit of the claim. He rejected the claim because of the discrepancy as to the number of rolls of filter paper in the two consignments; for non-production of shortage certificate and also on the ground that the shortage was discovered after clearance. Shri Gidwani's contention that consideration of the appeal on merit by the Appellate....