TMI Blog1979 (3) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccording to the petitioner sulphur is exempted from the whole of the Customs duty leviable thereon under the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 by virtue of a notification, dated August 20, 1965. It is alleged, between November, 1969 and April, 1971, the petitioner imported a number of consignments of sulphur particulars whereof are given in the petition. 3. It is alleged that the goods fall under Item 28(3) of the Indian Customs Tariff and as such same were exempted by virtue of the aforesaid notification. But the Customs Authorities wrongfully levied duty on each of the said consignments alleging that the goods in question fall under item No. 28 of the Indian Customs Tariff being 'Drugs and Chemicals' the duty levied being 60 per cent. ad valore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding to the petitioner was received by the Assistant Collector of Customs on May 29, 1971. 7. It appears that each of the said application for refund was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs by an order passed on June 6, 1971 on the ground that each of the application for refund was preferred out of time. The appeals preferred by the petitioner were also rejected on the same ground and the Revision petition before the Central Government was also rejected. The petitioner herein is challenging the said order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Appellate Collector of Customs and the Central Government. 8. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner has got the right to refund inasmuch as the duties were unlawfully ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner has such a right independent of the statute. First of all that question does not arise in this case. The petitioner has pursued such remedy under the statute. The petitioner has made such application under Section 27 of the Act to the Assistant Collector of Customs. Further under the provisions of this Act it has preferred an appeal to the Appellate Collector of Customs and thereafter a revision petition to the Central Government. Accordingly, it is not open to the petitioner in case to contend that he has got some other right conferred by the statute. Further, I am of the opinion that when a statute makes such right of refund the petitioner is bound by such conditions imposed by such statute which has conferred such right. My ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
