Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Consolidated Metal Finishing Pvt Ltd Versus The Commissioner of Customs, The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II) , The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) ,

Seeking refund of excess amount erroneously collected - Principles of natural justice - Import of "Electro Plating Process" and paid duty by online e-payment mode, while making payment the portal displayed a message "Bank away server application error", whereby, the payment got debited nine times , thereby collecting an excess amount - Held that:- since the third respondent is withholding the amount, excessively paid by the petitioners and when the second respondent himself has stated that the p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ORDER The petitioners have filed the above writ petition to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in and connected with Order in Appeal No.C.Cus.II No.504/2015 dated 29.05.2015, passed by the second respondent herein upholding the Order-In-Original No.36021/2015 and 35021/2015 dated 15.04.2015 passed by the third respondent, quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, unconsstitution and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to ref .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation error", whereby, the payment had got debited nine times amounting to ₹ 2,16,855/- instead of ₹ 24,095/-, thereby collecting an excess of ₹ 1,92,760/-. Immediately, on realizing the excess debit from their bank account held with UCO Bank, a letter dated 16.05.2012 was addressed to the bank to refund the excess amounts debited, totalling ₹ 1,92,760/-. 3. By letter dated 30.05.2012, the Bank informed the petitioners Company that they have paid the Customs Duty on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fter, since the respondents did not refund the excess amount, the petitioners filed an application before the third respondent. The third respondent rejected the application, stating that the application had been filed after a period of one year, as contemplated under Sec.27 of the Customs Act. Aggrieved over the order passed by the third respondent, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the second respondent, by his Order dated 29.5.2015, has stated that Sec.27 of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing for the petitioners pointed out that the petitioners have been corresponding with the respondents for getting refund of the amounts from the years 2012 to 2014 and ultimately, they filed an application, seeking for refund of amount on 03.03.2015. 6. Admittedly, the second respondent himself stated that the provisions of Sec.27 of the Customs Act are not applicable to the petitioners' case for the reason that the claim, made by the petitioners, is not for refund of duty and further, the s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version