9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (4) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... praising Department, Bombay, assessed duty under I.C.T. Item No. 28 at 60% basic custom duty +10% auxiliary duty +15% C.V. duty amounting to ₹ 1,22,44,062.64 on the total value of ₹ 1,28,21,008. 2. The appellants later contended that the Customs authorities have wrongly assessed the duty on the consignment and, therefore, the appellants were entitled for refund. A claim was preferred on 12-11-1973 to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, for refund contending that the subject consignment was exempted from payment of 60% basic duty vide Ministry of Finance Notification No. 115-Customs, dated 11-8-1973 (File No. 355/11/72-Customs-I), dated 11-8-1973. The appellants claimed the refund of ₹ 88,46,495.52. On 14-8-19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctor to examine the claim de novo. The appellants lodged their claim after the finalisation of the Bill of Entry on 18-7-1977. That was rejected by Assistant Collector of Customs, with a printed slip (No. S/3-382/77 GS, dated nil but reportedly received by F.C.I, on 2-5-1978). On appeal, the Appellate Collector rejected the same on the basis that a copy of the order-in-original was not produced. The appellants have, therefore, come forward with the present appeal. 3. Shri D.N. Mehta, Consultant, appearing for the appellants narrated the hardship caused to the appellants being driven from pillar to post, even though the ad hoc Exemption Order was squarely applicable to their case. He also referred to a decision of the Madras High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Entry filed shows that 13,999,993 M.T. of fertilizer were imported on 30-6-1973. The Exemption Order refers to the same vessel and the same quantity ₹ 14,000 M.T.'. Of course, the arrival ports have been mentioned as Vizag and Calcutta; but the goods were imported at Bombay. The change in the arrival port would not make the shipment different. We do not also accept the contention that the Bill of Entry could refer to some other shipment. This Bill of Entry had been filed before the authorities concerned to a different shipment. Further, a scrutiny of the Bill of Entry as also the particulars mentioned in the ad hoc Exemption Order, proves beyond doubt that the Exemption Order related only to this consignment. We also do not feel that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
