9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)].- The appellants had imported heavy metal scrap and paid duty of Rs. 3,33,089/- thereon at concessional rate in terms of Customs Notification No. 23/98 vide bill of entry No. 4075, dated 23-2-1999. The payment of duty was made on 3-3-1999. On 31-12-1999, the party filed a refund claim under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act. This claim was on the ground that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct and hence could not be said to be provisional. The learned Counsel has alternatively submitted that the appellants were not liable to pay duty on the goods abandoned by them and, therefore, the amount paid by them should be refunded, without reference to Section 27 of the Customs Act. The learned JDR, in this context, submits that, even if the refund claim is related to Section 23(2) of the Cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the limitation provisions of Section 27 to their refund claim. The Customs Act does not provide for condonation of delay of a claim for refund of Customs duty. The duty was paid on 3-3-1999 and the refund claim was filed far beyond the pre scribed period of six months from the said date. The claim was clearly time-barred. 4. The above legal position is not altered either by reason of the assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment was provisional by virtue of such condition. This is the answer to the plea of provisionally of assessment raised by the learned Counsel. Though there is no ground raised in this appeal with reference to Section 23 of the Customs Act, we have considered the reference made to this provision of law by the counsel, as a legal plea. Admittedly, the goods were abandoned by the assessee before an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
