E.I. Dupont India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import) ...

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 77/2004-MCH dated 25.3.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai )

For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)

Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)

============================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

=============================================================

E.I. Dupont India Ltd.

:

Appellant

VS

Commissioner of Customs (Import) Mumbai. :

Respondent

Appearance

None for Appellant

Shri D.K. Sinha, Assistant Commissioner (A.R) for respondent

CORAM:

Mr. P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical) Mr. Ramesh Nair (Judicial)

Date of hearing : 30/07/2015 Date of decision : 30/07/2015

ORDER NO.

Per : P.S. Pruthi

The appellant have filed an appeal against the impugned Order-in-Appeal under which the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund claim for the reason that the same was not filed within six months from the date of payment of duty in terms of Section 27 of the Customs Act.

2. The appellant imported goods. On examination of the goods it was found that the quantity contained in the container was less than the quantity mentioned in the Bill of Entry and other import documents. On the basis of these documents the appellant had paid excess duty. The appellant requested for reassessment of the Bill of Entry vide their letter dt. 18.12.2000 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, MOD Docks, Mumbai. In this letter the appellant have also requested that the excess duty paid by them may be refunded.

3. The lower authorities have rejected the refund claim on the ground that in respect of the Bill of Entry dt. 4.12.2000 for which duty was paid on 8.12.2000, the refund application was received on 4.9.2001 i.e. after six months from the date of payment of duty.

4. We find that the request for refund was already made in their letter dt.18.12.2000. Treating this as the refund claim, it is well within the time limit of six months from the date of payment of duty. Therefore, the excess amount of duty is paid by the appellant is ordered to be refunded.

5. Impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed.

(Dictated in court )

(Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial)

(P.S.Pruthi) Member (Technical)

SM.

3 Appeal No. C/603/2004