9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... short question arising for consideration in this case is whether the limitation provisions under Section 27 of the Customs Act are applicable to a claim for refund of interest paid under Section 61(2) of the Act. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are : The raw material imported by the appellants were in-bonded/warehoused on 18-3-99 and ex-bonded/cleared out of warehouse for home cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o under Section 61(2) is only in the nature of a measure of interest leviable for the period beyond the prescribed interest-free period of warehousing. The Counsel has, in this connection, relied on the decision of this Bench in Sunil Synchem Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur [2003 (157) E.L.T. 58]. Counsel submits that, undisputedly, no interest was leviable in respect of the subject goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, submits that Section 27 happened to be mentioned in the refund application only by mistake. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. The Commissioner (Appeals) appears to have rightly rejected the plea of the appellants that Section 27(1)(b) is not applicable to a claim of refund of interest paid under Section 61(2) of the Act. A plain reading of sub-section (2) of Section 61 clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not now turn round and say that the provision is not applicable. The plea of mistake is not tenable as there was no mistake on the part of the appellants in invoking Section 27 for claiming refund of the interest. The decision cited by the learned Counsel is, clearly, distinguishable for the reason correctly stated by the DR. Admittedly, the refund claim was filed beyond the period of six months f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
