2014 (12) TMI 1121

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he time limit fixed under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 can be considered by the second respondent appellate Tribunal as a valid claim under the provisions of the Customs Act? 2. Whether the impugned order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 10.11.2006 allowing the claim for refund of the first respondent after the expiry of seven years, contrary to the time limit fixed by the Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, is maintainable inlaw" 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent has filed two refund applications dated 26.10.1990 and 02.04.1991 seeking refund of excess duty paid and the same were dismissed by the Original Authority on 30.7.1992 and 14.12.1995 respectiv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l, which is as follows: "10. In para 100 of the Mafatlal Industries Ltd. judgement, the Supreme Court had directed that in respect of claims which had been pending in suits/writ appeals, the concerned petitioners should file refund claims within 60 days of pronouncement of the judgement in that case. In the instant case, the appellants had received favourable orders vide orders in Appeal dated 14.6.93 and 30.10.96. Subject claims had not been pending in any proceeding before any court at the time when the Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced the judgement. What the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered in para 100 extracted above is in respect of claims involved in pending Writ petitions/Writ appeals/suits. Therefore, it cannot be said that ....