9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 918X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MIC CAD++ Coordinate Measuring Machine for use in automobile industry (hereinafter referred to as impugned goods) falling under CTH No. 90318000 and filed a Bill of Entry No. 506159 dated 31.03.08 for home consumption against commercial invoice No. 527325 dated 31.01.08 for CIF value of USD 61500 (Rs. 24,97,023/-) involving Custom duty of Rs. 7,15,128/-. The Bill of Entry was processed in EDI System and impugned goods were assessed to Customs [email protected]%+14%+2%+1%+2%+1%+4% under section 17 of the Customs Act 1962 and accordingly the Appellant deposited an amount of Rs. 7,15,128/- towards payment of duty vide TR-6 Challan no 98182288 dt. 02.04.08. As per EDI System remarks dated 01.04.08, the impugned goods were to be opened & examined 100% su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the body of the letter itself. Para-4 The second survey was jointly conducted in the presence of Customs Officers Sh. Kulwant Singh, Inspector, Sh. VPS Khurana, Supdt. & Sh. Kumar Ji, Godown Incharge CWC, representative of CHA Sh. Pratap Singh Rawat-G-Cart Holder and Sh. S.K.Mallick, Chartered Engineer. Survey report dated. 18.11.08 was submitted by the Chartered Engineer which stated as follows, Base wood Platform of Machinery are safe but upper covering packing of machine are in badly damage condition. Damages under the said assignment occur due to base platform of M/c are strong but all around packing of upper area are light & weak. At the time of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst joint survey was conducted on 17.09.08. In order to ascertain that why the first survey was conducted so late, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, ICD, PPG, Delhi was asked to convey the facts about the survey conducted. The concerned Deputy Commissioner vide his letter C. No. VIII/6/ICD/PPG/Refunds/140/08/506 dated 23.01.2010 informed that the Appellants vide their letter-dated 20.08.08 requested for joint survey. 11. The Appellants have not explained why they took so long to apply for survey on 20.08.08 when fact of goods being damaged came to their knowledge by de-stuffing report dated 7.4.2008. 12. Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 reads as under:- Section 27. Claim for refund of duty.- (1) Any person claiming refund of any [duty a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... file the refund claim within the prescribed limit of six months when the fact of the goods being damaged had already come on record vide de-stuffing report date 7.4.2008. There was no need for them to have waited for the survey report before filing the refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the contention of the Appellant that the limitation should be computed from the date of acceptance of the second joint survey is incorrect. 13. In view of above, impugned order is upheld and appeal is untenable and is rejected. 6. From the above, I am convinced that adjudicating authority and Commissioner (Appeals) have examined the matter in depth and have rightly rejected t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
