TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Appellant. Shri M.K.A.K. Mohiddin, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellants had paid Basic Customs Duty (BCD) by way of debit in DEPB and other duties of Customs under a TR-6 Challan dated 31-8-2004 in respect of titanium coils imported by them from Russia vide bill of entry no. 674247 dated 26-8-2004. The duties other than BCD totalled to Rs. 1,92,305/-, which was paid in cash. After the payment of duties, the party found that 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Superintendent of Central Excise and, accordingly, the claim was held to be not hit by time-bar under Section 11B. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned JDR that a refund claim for Customs duty should be strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act including the period of limitation mentioned therein. In the present case, the letter dated 19-1-2005 submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (DEPB) was neither in the prescribed 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 an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned consultant, I am of the view that the Delhi High Court's decision Arya Export and Industries case (supra) coupled with the apex court's decision in Poulose Matthen (supra) would support the appellant's case that their refund claim is liable to be treated as having been filed on 19-1-2005, the date on which they claimed refund in a letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner (DEPB). It was very much open to the Deputy Commissioner to advise the party to make the refund claim before 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 whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
