TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (9) TMI 91
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Petitioner No. 1 is engaged in the manufacture of rayon and rayon products. Several items required for its plant and machinery had been imported by the said petitioner prior to July 1978. The imported articles were liable to customs duty chargeable under the Act. Sections 14 and 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 (Act) have been amended from time to time in a never-ending struggle between the taxman and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 1-7-1978. They were however cleared after that date. Petitioner 1 paid duty calculated at the rate of exchange prevailing en the dates of ex-bonding. Initially the applications sought a refund of Rs. 24,841.20 ps. as paid in excess because of a mistake. Subsequently the amount due and refundable was estimated at Rs. 1,60,439.73 ps. Respondent 2 rejected the applications by invoking the bar of lim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmits is the application of Section 59 and not Section 46 to the instant case. Last is the contention that the amendments relied upon were prospective and not retrospective. 5. The reliance placed upon sub-section (5) of Section 27 is not of any assistance to the respondents. Whatever the constraints upon authorities functioning under the Act vis-a-vis Section 27 thereof, a writ Court is under a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bonding. The petitioners' Counsel replies and rightly so by pointing to Section 46(1) which requires presentation of a BUJ of Entry whether the importer wants to effect a clearance or warehousing. And the rate of exchange is that prevailing on the date of presentation of a Bill of Entry. This is the effect of the post 1-7-1978 amendment and thus viewed petitioners are entitled to the relief claime....