TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id was inserted in the Tariff Act by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 and relevant sub-section [Sub-section (1)] reads as under :- "3A. Special additional duty. - (1) any article which is imported into India shall in addition be liable to a duty (hereinafter referred to in this section as the special additional duty), which shall be levied at a rate to be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, having regard to the maximum sales tax, local tax or any other charges for the time being leviable on a like article on its sale or purchase in India. Provided that until such rate is specified by the Central Government the special additional duty shall be levied and collected at the rate of eight per cent of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms (Refund), ICD, Tughlakabad. The claim was accordingly submitted to the Assistant Commissioner at Tughlakabad on the same day. On 17-12-98, the papers were sent back to the party with an advice to submit the same to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ICD Faridabad. The papers, which were received by the party on 21-12-98, were accordingly submitted to the Assistant Commissioner at Faridabad on 22-12-98. By that time, the Statutory period of six months from the date of payment of duty had expired. Both the authorities below has rejected the refund claim on this ground. Hence this appeal. 2. Heard both sides. Ld. Consultant for the appellants refers to Notification No. 27/97-Cus. (N.T.), dated 7-7-97 (as amended) issued by the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion or not. The lower authorities have reckoned 22-12-98 (date of filing of refund claim with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Faridabad for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. If this reckoning is correct, the refund claim is time-barred as it was filed beyond six months from the date of payment of duty. The case of the appellants is that the date of filing of the refund claim with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, New Custom House, New Delhi has to be reckoned for the purpose of computing the period of six months under Section 27 of the Customs Act. If this plea is acceptable, the refund claim will not be hit by the bar of limitation under Section 27. Ld. Consultant has pointed out, with reference to Notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought to be filed with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs at ICD, Faridabad. The cause of action for refund had arisen as early as on 13-6-98, when Notification No. 35/98-Cus. was issued limiting the applicable rate of Special Additional Duty of Customs to 4% ad valorem. There is no valid explanation in this case for the delay between 13-6-98 and 2-12-98. Had they acted with a little diligence, the refund claim would have been submitted in time to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs at Faridabad in terms of Regulation No. 2. The appellants have to suffer on account of their own negligence and laches. The refund claim submitted to the competent authority on 22-12-98 is clearly beyond the period of six months from the date of payment of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
