TMI Blog1993 (11) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondents have not filed any return in the present petition. According to the petitioners, the goods were imported under Import Licences OGL/3/80 in April 1981. The said goods under OGL were allowed for actual user only. Copy of invoice (Ex. 2) is annexed to the affidavit of Shri Ramesh Girijya Kulal dated 7th September 1992. It is further averred by the petitioners in the said affidavit that at no stage these goods are sold to outsiders and the petitioner No. 1 has not passed the incidence of duty to consumer. It was further stated that the petitioners made use of the imported goods for the manufacture of end-products i.e. commercial vehicles. 3. According to the petitioners, they imported one case of spares for grinding machine per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... davit of Shri Ramesh Girijya Kulal dated 7th September 1992. On calculations, Counsel urged that there was a bona fide mistake in calculations in the present case. In the presence of the Counsel for the Respondents calculations were made by him. After reading calculations it is obvious that the customs duty that is payable by the petitioners was Rs. 42,646.42. As against this, they have paid Rs. 1,84,646,42. Thus, excess payment made by the petitioners comes to Rs. 1,42,000. 6. Now, the question is if such an arithmetical mistake is crept-in in assessment of customs duty on Bill of Entry, whether the petitioners should be denied the refund claim solely on the ground of limitation as prescribed under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act. We ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scribed therein. In these circumstances, the petitioners will have to make an application to the appropriate authority in terms of Section 27 of the amended provisions of the Customs Act and if such an application is made, the Competent Authority will dispose of the same within six months, 9. It is however, made clear that on the basis of the averments in the affidavit of Shri Ramesh Girijya Kulal, dated 7th September 1992, it is concluded that the petitioners have imported the goods for their own use and in fact hey have used the same in their factory for manufacturing end-products. They have not sold the goods to any outsider and, therefore, the question of passing incidence of duty on the consumer does not arise. 10. In the result, p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
