1982 (9) TMI 63

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....16th June, 1977 the vessel's import general manifest was lodged with the Customs authorities. The duty upon the said goods was increased with effect from mid night of 17th/18th June, 1977 to 75%. On 20th June, 1977 the ship was granted entry inward. On 23rd June, 1977 the Customs authorities, it is the case of the Petitioner, revised the assessment and raised the duty payable to 75%. Between 25th June, 1977 to 6th July, 1977 the Petitioner paid the amounts of duty assessed at 75%. On 6th December, 1977 the Petitioner made three applications for refund of duty paid in excess of 45%. On 6th March, 1978 the refunds applications were rejected. On 30th May, 1978 appeals were filed and on 26th February, 1979 by a consolidated order the Appellate ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., was not valid. In Mr Chinoy's submission, noting down the rate of duty and quantifing the duty was always the only thing done in completing the assessment. 3. It was pointed out by Mr Dhanuka, learned counsel for the respondents, that no assessment of duty could have been completed on 15th June, 1977 for the vessel's import general manifest was not filed till 16th June, 1977 and the vessel was not granted entry inwards till 20th June, 1977. In his submission noting down of the rate and quantification of duty payable upon the bills of entry did not, in the circumstances, complete the assessment of duty. In any event, he submitted, assuming that the assessment was completed, on 16th June, 1977, it was clearly the wrong thing to do and the ....