9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (2) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty payable under the said tariff item at that time was 100% duty and 20% additional duty. Having paid the duty, he cleared the goods. Subsequently, the appellant says, he entered into correspondence with the Customs Authorities regarding the appropriate tariff item under which the said goods ought to have been classified. He says that he received the letter dated October 26, 1978 from the authorities, which according to the appellant, supports his contention that the said goods must be subjected to duty not under Tariff Item 73.33/40 but under Tariff Item 85.18-27 which attracts a far lower rate of duty. 3.Be that as it may, the appellant filed an applications for refund on October 9, 1978, even before receiving the letter dated 26-10-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rter of any goods other than goods intended for transit or transhipment, shall make entry thereof by presenting to the proper officer a bill of entry for home consumption or warehousing in the prescribed form. Section 17(1) says that if an importer has filed a bill of entry under Section 46, the goods shall be examined and tested by the proper officer. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 says that after such examination and testing, the duty, if any, leviable on such goods shall save as otherwise provided in Section 85 be assessed. Sub-section (1) of Section 47 says that where the proper officer is satisfied that any goods entered for home consumption are not prohibited goods and the importer has paid the duty and any charges payable under this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of assessment in such a situation. We are, therefore, not prepared to agree that there is no order of assessment in this case, and therefore, the limitation prescribed in Section 27 did not begin to run. Section 27 is emphatic in language. It says that an application for refund of duty shall be made before the expiry of six months from the date on which the duty was paid. In the face of this provision, the authorities under the Act, including the Government of India, had no option but to dismiss the appellant's application. This is also the view taken by this Court in Madras Rubber Factory v. Union of India [1983 (13) E.L.T. 1579 (S.C.) = 1976 (2) SCC 864]. 7.Now coming to the second submission of Mr. A.K. Ganguli, it must be seen that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 which may be quoted in full, in view of the fact that it puts forward another aspect of the controversy relating to refund : "It appears that where the duty has been levied without the authority of law or without reference to any statutory authority or the specific provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder have no application, the decision will be guided by the general law and the date of limitation would be the starting point when the mistake or the error comes to light. But in making claims for refund before the departmental authority, an assessee is bound within four corners of the statute and the period of limitation prescribed in the Central Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder must be adhered to. The authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
