TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al is directed against the order of the Collector (Appeals) bearing No. 1885/89 BCH dated 4-12-1989. The undisputed facts are that the appellants claimed refund of duty paid on 19-5-1988 by filing the refund claim, which was received by the Asstt. Collector on 20-6-1989. The claim was rejected as time-barred and the matter was taken in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) which was also rejected. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is to be computed from the date. After the above arguments were concluded by Shri Agrawal, his attention was specifically invited to the decision of the South Regional Bench in the case of K. Vishwanathan v. Collector of Customs reported in 1990 (50) E.L.T. 301 which deals with an identical case where refund claim has not been lodged within a period of six months from the date of payment of dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircumstances, we did not call upon Shri Arya to argue. In this case, though the arguments advanced by the Representative explain the reasons for delay in filing the refund claim, there is no provision in the Customs Act for computing the time limit beyond a period of six months from the date of payment of duty. We also observe that they should have been in possession of the ad hoc exemption order, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
