1986 (7) TMI 96

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....petitioners are challenging the legality of the order dated May 27, 1982 passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Bombay, rejecting the application of refund of duty paid by the petitioners. The facts giving rise to the passing of this order are as follows. 2. The petitioners imported Lucop Step and Repeat Machine and the Bill of Entry was filed on November 29, 1980. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r an amount of Rs. 2,67,724.23. The application for refund was rejected by the Assistant Collector holding that it was barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act. On merits, the Assistant Collector merely observed that the assessment order holding that the machine was liable to duty under Tariff Item No. 90.10 was correct and this order of the Assistant Collector is und....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that excessive duty was paid by the petitioner under mistake of law, and it is now well-settled that such duty cannot be retained by the Department. Shri Rege, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, strenuously urgeo that the petitioners had remedy to file an appeal against the assessment of duty under Tariff Item No. 90.10 and if the petitioners did not adopt that remedy, the ord....