9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the identification marks of the consignment did not tally with those mentioned in the import documents. They found that the goods ordered by them had been mistakenly sent to Peru and that the goods received by them were actually those ordered by the Peruvian importer. The mishap was taken to the notice of the Russian supplier and, as per their instructions, the appellants pleaded for permission to re-export the goods to Peru. The Commissioner of Customs permitted this and, accordingly, the goods covered by the above bill of entry were re-exported to Peru. 2. Subsequently, in a letter dated 19-1-2005 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (DEPB Section), the appellants requested for recredit of the BCD amount in their DEPB as also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribed format nor addressed to the proper officer and, therefore, it cannot be treated as a refund claim filed in accordance with Section 27 of the Act. The refund claim filed in proper format to the proper officer was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 27 and hence rightly rejected by the authorities. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the Apex Court's judgment in Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Company [1996 (84) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.)]. At this stage, learned consultant refers to the Tribunal's decision in Poulose & Matthen v. Collector of Central Excise [1989] (43) E.L.T. 424 (Tribunal)] and also submits that this decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Apex Court in Collector v. Poulose & Matthen [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the proper officer who was also sitting in the same Customs House, viz, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds). Lack of co-ordination between officers of Customs in the Customs House cannot be a reason for denying to a person a substantive benefit which he is otherwise entitled to. The claim made in proper format dated 30-3-2005 was accompanied by the requisite documents evidencing payment of duty etc. This claim ought to have been considered as a claim made on 19-1-2005, in which event the refund would not have been denied as time-barred. However, the claim should satisfy other conditions prescribed under Section 27 of the Act. 6. In the result, the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the original authority is dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
