2013 (7) TMI 1070

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the Respondent. ORDER There is delay of 50 days in filing of the appeal and an application for condonation of delay has been filed. Before issuing notice on the said application, we have deemed it appropriate to examine whether the impugned order dated 8th November, 2012, passed by the Tribunal requires interference. 2. The respondent had imported, consignment of folder material for adve .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o refund of customs duty of ₹ 5,55,687/- paid by mistake. 3. The adjudicating authority dismissed the application recording that refund under Section 27(1)(b) of the Act should have been filed within six months. We note that the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) did not deal with the issue and contention whether it was a case of mistake, covered under Sections 149 and 154 of the Act and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), 2004 (172) E.L.T. 145. In the said case the assessee had contested and had lost before the Supreme Court. Thereafter, an attempt was made to re-open and claim refund. In this context, it was observed that this was not permissible. The facts of the present case are entirely different. We also note that the amount involved in the present case is only ₹ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X