TMI Blog2008 (10) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt deposited by the appellants would be adjusted against the duty on the goods in question. Therefore, the refund claim was rightly rejected - C/141/2008-SM(BR) - 1580/2008-SM (BR)(PB), - Dated:- 17-10-2008 - Shri P.K. Das, Member (J) Shri Mohan Lal, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Saini, DR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellant filed this appeal against rejection of refund of Rs. 1,42,391.00. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the claim is beyond six months time from the date of payment as stipulated in Section 27(1)(b) of Customs Act 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Adjudication Order. 2. Ld. Advocate submits that the appellants deposited the amount before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bombay). He also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Jagdish Cancer Research Centre reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.). 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that by Order dated 17-11-2005, the Joint Commissioner of Customs, confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 1,20,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty of Rs. 60,000/-. It was directed that duty is chargeable at the time of clearance. Both the Authorities below rejected the refund claim on the ground of limitation under Section 27 of the Act. I find that the goods were confiscated and redemption fine was imposed under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of fine in lieu of confiscation then the duty on such goods does not become payable on imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation, but has to be paid before seeking clearance of the goods. In such a case, if the clearance of the goods is not sought for, the question of paying duty does not arise at all. The contention of the ld. Advocate that the appellant is not seeking clearance of the goods and, therefore, the question of paying duty does not arise and the deposit made by them is liable to be refunded. 6. I do not find any force in the submission of the ld. Advocate. The Hon'ble Court in the said decision observed that in the context of Section 125(2), the word "payable" means duty which has become due and payable at the time of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
