TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der respectfully, but the department has failed to do so. When the refund was due in August 2006, then the amendment which came into effect in May 2007, is not applicable. It is applicable only with effect from its Notification i.e. 11th May 2007 and it is not applicable retrospectively - the appellant is entitled for the refund which was due in the month of August 2006 - the proper authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ential duty, penalty and fine which were paid by the appellant during the course of investigation. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed an appeal before the CESTAT who vide order No. A/902-905/WZB/2006/CSTB dated 24.08.2006 had set aside the said impugned order. In other words, the Tribunal has observed that demand of duty and penalty were not justifiable. Accordingly, the appellant fil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he other hand, Shri S.R. Nair, learned Authorised Representative had justified the impugned order. He submits that the section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 was amended with effect from 01.06.2007 where time limit has been prescribed for refund claim and it is six months. He submits that the assessee was supposed to file the claim within a period of six months and in this case the said claim was f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the opinion that the appellant is entitled for the refund which was due in the month of August 2006. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and direct the proper authorities to make the refund at the earliest as the matter is too old. It is expected from the department s concerned authority, by giving proper honour to the Tribunal s direction regarding the refund and the same be made wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
