TMI Blog1987 (6) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent. [Order per : D.C. Mandal, Member (T)]. - None appeared before us for hearing on behalf of the appellants. However, Shri V.B. Akolkar, counsel for the appellants, in his letter dated 3-2-1987, requested for deciding this appeal on the basis of the written submissions enclosed to the said letter. We, therefore, heard Shri J. Gopi Nath, learned SDR for the respondent. He drew o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stoms duty. On the basis of the said ad hoc exemption order, the appellants applied for refund of duty paid. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the refund application on the ground that as the goods had already been imported, the ad hoc exemption order could not be extended retrospectively. An appeal was filed before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) against the order of the Assistant Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions 12 and 15 of the Customs Act, 1962. The powers vested with the Central Government under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 are paramount powers which are not fettered with any other conditions or the provisions of the other Sections such as Sections 12/15 of the Customs Act, 1962. They have pleaded that duty already paid by them as Customs duty on the import of the consignment should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same have been already cleared, irrespective of the question of retrospectivity. In 1985 (21) E.L.T. 128, the Tribunal held that even in a case where Customs duty had been collected, it would be open to the Central Government, in exercise of its powers under Section 25(2), to grant exemption and refund duty. It was further observed that Section 25(2) of the Customs Act does not put any restricti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
