1991 (7) TMI 73

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petitioners. 2. The petitioners imported liquid paraffin by two separate consignments in March 1977. The petitioners presented bill of entry and paid customs duty under Tariff Item 27.10(1) at the rate of 40% and auxiliary duty at the rate of 5%. The petitioners claimed that the collection of countervailing duty by the Customs authorities was not justified under Excise Tariff Item No. 11A. The Department did not accept the claim and as the petitioners were keen to clear the goods, the countervailing duty/additional duty at the rate of 20% ad valorem and Rs. 190/- per metric ton was paid by the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter filed two separate refund applications on February 1, 1979 and claimed refund of sum of Rs. 1,08,242.60 in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h the authorities constituted under the Customs Act are bound by the provisions of Section 27, the defence is not available to the Department when in writ jurisdiction it is established that the recovery of duty was in violation of law. It is now well established that the Department cannot retain duty which was recovered without any authority of law. Shri Rege, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Department, submitted that there is nothing on record to establish that duty was recovered without any authority of law. The learned counsel invited our attention to the observations made by CEGAT to the following effect: "From the grounds of revision, it is not possible to make out how the collection was without authority of law or paymen....