TMI Blog1987 (6) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the rate of exchange in froce on the date of removal of the goods from the warehouse. This was in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 read with Section 68 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter the Act ). It appears that both the assessing officer and the assessee were not aware of the amendment of Sections 14 and 15 of the Act by Act No. 25 of 1978. Section 15 as it stood before and after the amendment read as follows :- Date of determination of rate of duty and tariff valuation of imported goods - (1) The rate of duty, *[the rate of exchange] and tariff valuation, if any, applicable to any imported goods, shall be the rate and valuation in force - (a) X X X X (b) in the case of goods cleared from a warehouse under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the aforesaid amount of Rs. 46,756.79 stated by them as payable to the department, a sum of Rs. 32,070.15 was barred by time and had been included through mistake and that only a sum of Rs. 14,686.24 be deducted from the total claim amount. On 18-1-1980, the Superintendent of Central Excise, issued to the appellants a notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act, calling upon them to show cause why an amount of Rs. 46,756.39 short paid by them during the period 4-10-1978 to 1-6-1979 be not recovered by them. It was alleged that there was misstatement or suppression of facts on their part in not declaring the correct assessable value of the goods on the relevant ex-bond bill of entry. The appellants contested this demand by stating that ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir letter dated 12-11-1979, i.e. long before the issue of the refund cheque by the Assistant Collector, brought to the notice of the authorities that out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 32,070.15 was barred by time and that consequently only a sum of Rs. 14,686.24 should be deducted from the total refund claim. While issuing the cheque, this letter was ignored and the cheque was issued for the lesser amount. The circumstances indicated that the appellants had not, in the final analysis, voluntarily agreed to pay the whole of Rs. 46,756.79 but only Rs. 14,686.24. It also stressed that, in adjudication, the Assistant Collector had withdrawn the show cause notice. In this context reliance was placed on two decisions of this Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue. It was received not on account of any enforcement or coercive action. Had there been coercion or enforcement, the Tribunal observed, it would order refund of the amount collected because such action would make the receipt of such money, even if lawfully due, illegal. This was a volunteered payment even if under protest. Since the money was lawfully and justly receivable by the Revenue, it would not be correct to order its return. 6. In the present case, the demand notice issued by the department was Clearly barred by limitation and the Assistant Collector has rightly withdrawn it. Thus there is no adjudged demand from the side of the department. Only the appellant s letters claiming refund and offering voluntary payment are there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
