TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri N.K. Mishra, ld. JDR for the Appellant-Revenue and Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, ld. Consultant for the respondents. 2. Ld. JDR, Shri Mishra submits that in the present case, all the refund applications were filed on 26th March, 2002 based on excess payment of cess duty on the basis of earlier tariff value excepting in one consignment against Bill of Export No. 683/Exp/Cess/Ran/01, dated 20th Oct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the refunds are governed by Section 51 of Customs Act and not by 27 of the Customs Act. He submits that the deposits were made on the provisional assessments and they have challenged the assessments by way of refund application. This was an anticipated deposit for customs duty and governed by Section 51 of Customs Act. He has relied upon the two decisions reported in 2002 (143) E.L.T. 482 (S.C.) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt under that Act . Under Section 27 of the Customs Act, the refund application can be filed before the competent authority before the expiry of the period of six months. In the present case, all the applications except in one case filed after the expiry period of six months. The submission of the ld. Consultant is that this was an anticipated duty which is not acceptable. Section 51 of the Cust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
