TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. The appellants are aggrieved with Order-in-Appeal No. 151/2003-Cus., dated 19-11-2003 by which the Commissioner (A) has confirmed the rejection of refund claim as barred by time under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The appellants had filed the refund claim within six months on 13-8-2001 in respect of Bill of Entry No. 679 dated 14-2-2001. The Origina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled after complying with the deficiencies should not be taken as the date for limitation purpose. In this regard, the appellant is relying on the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Goodyear India Limited v. CC, New Delhi reported in 2002 (150) E.L.T. 331 (Tri.-Del.) wherein it has been held that when the claim has been filed within time and the authority has returned th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ths from the date of the payment of duty. The defects were rectified and the refund application was re-filed on 8-3-2002. The Tribunal in the case of Goodyear India Limited (supra) has held in an identical situation that the date for limitation should be reckoned from the original date of filing of the Bill of Entry. In view of this judgment, we have to hold that the application for refund was fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
