TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (2) TMI 79
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Duty vide Notification No. 104/82-C.E., dated 28th February, 1962, as amended from time to time. Because of a mistake law mutually entertained by petitioner and the Assistant Collector of Customs, Additional Duty was illegally, recovered. Petitioner realised the error pursuant to the judgment of Pendse, J. in Writ Petition No 1808 of 1982. This judgment was delivered on 12th August, 1986. Petitioner got knowledge of the judgment on or about 25th August, 1986. On 6th October, 1986, petitioner applied for refund. This application was rejected by respondent No. 3 on the ground that the claim was barred by time vis-a-vis Section 27 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The erroneous order was contrary to the judgment of Pendse, J. aforementioned. He....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of this decision is that the goods were not exempt from Additional Duty. Lastly, even if petitioner was to get a direction for a refund, it should be subject to verification of the claim on the basis of production of relevant documents, as it was not uncommon for the Customs Authorities to come across Spurious claims. In this case itself, petitioner had made some double claims. 4. Excepting for two issues which I will consider below, the other defences raised by respondents have to be negatived as being covered by Pendse, J.'s decision in Writ Petition No. 1808 of 1982 and my decision in Writ Petition No. 2228 of 1986, decided on 15th January, 1987, along with a number of other petitions. The two points which require consideration are :-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e accompanied by "an invoice or other statement showing the name and address of the manufacturer and the names and quantities of the drugs". Now, so far as this requirement of the Rule is concerned, the Bill of Entry at Ex. 'E' enumerates in Column 2 the commodity being imported and the name and address of the manufacturer. The commodity is described as 'Sorbitol 70 PC Liquid USP'. The country of manufacture is given out to be France. The name of the manufacturer is Roquette Freres. The batch number, date of manufacture, etc., ete. are all set out in Column 2. The contention is that those particulars are not sufficient, for the importer had further to establish compliance with the prescribed standard - such standard being that set out in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (CESTA), it did not mean an automatic exemption from Additional Duty recoverable under Section 3 of the C.T.A. This point was considered by Pendse, J. in Writ Petition No. 2840 of 1986, decided on 18th December, 1986, and, negatived in these words :- "Finally Shri Sethna submitted that even if Central Excise duty is not payable, still additional duty of customs can be levied, and in support of the submission reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court In Khandelwal Metal & Engineering Works and Another v. Union of India and Others. In my judgment, it is not necessary to examine this question, because even assuming that additional duty of customs can be levied, the questi....