TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 918X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urvey report before filing the refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the contention of the Appellant that the limitation should be computed from the date of acceptance of the second joint survey is incorrect. - Decided against the assessee. - C/259/2010-CU(SM) - FINAL ORDER NO.52631/2014 - Dated:- 1-7-2014 - Mr. Manmohan Singh, J. For the Appellant: Shri Rakesh Taneja, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri Jayant Sahai, DR JUDGEMENT PER: MANMOHAN SINGH Appellants have come in appeal against the Order-In-Appeal CCA/ICD/17/10 dated 19.3.2010. Commissioner (Appeals) after due consideration, rejected the appeal of the appellants. 2. For brief facts of the case, para 2 to para 4 are adopted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st scrap. They estimated the salvage value of the goods between ₹ 25,000/- to ₹ 27,000/-. After the receipt of the Surveyor report, the impugned goods was subjected to examination by the Customs Officers in the presence of representative of CHA-G Card Holder Sh. Pratap Singh Rawat keeping in view the de-stuffing sheet of M/s. CWC and Surveyor report to ascertain assess physical conditions of the impugned goods. At the time of survey, the Clearing Agent/staff neither got the signature of the Customs Officers on survey report nor any comments appeared on the body of bill of entry as alleged in their letter dated 14.11.08. Accordingly, the Appellant again requested the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Import) to permit and allow f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts, rejected their appeal. Commissioner (Appeals)s order as reproduced from para 10 to para 13 is self explanatory. 10. I have gone through the facts of the case on record and the submissions made at the time of personal hearing. It is observed that the Appellant filed a Bill of Entry No. 506159 dated 31.03.08 for the clearance of the impugned goods and paid duty vide TR-6 Challan no 98182288 dt. 02.04.08. The Appellants were to clear the goods after assessment. But as per de-stuffing sheet dated 07.04.08 of the custodian M/s. Central Warehousing Corporation Ltd. (CWC), ICD, Patparganj, Delhi, the impugned goods were found damaged. Therefore the facts of the goods being damaged came to the knowledge of the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf and the application shall be accompanied by such documentary or other evidence (including the documents referred to in section 28C) as the applicant may furnish to establish that the amount of [duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty] in relation to which such refund is claimed was collected from, or paid by, him and the incidence of such [duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty] had not been passed on by him to any other person From a plain reading of the above it is evident that the Appellants should have filed the refund claim before the expiry of six months from the date of payment of [duty and interest, if any, paid on such duty]. Nothing prevented the Appellants to file the refund claim within the prescribed limit of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
