Commissioner of Customs, Acc Vs. India Extrusion

Commissioner of Customs, Acc vs India Extrusion

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 29, 2005

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/40107

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/40107
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, Vice-, S T S.S.
Decided On: Aug 29, 2005
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Customs

Key legal issue: Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Customs, Acc

Respondent

India Extrusion

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(190)ELT445Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....found/held, in this order of remand, by the bench. that issue to our mind, therefore, stands settled. "as per order-in-appeal dated 12-12-2001 passed by the commissioner (appeals), postal receipt dated 8-7-1989 has been relied upon as evidence to decide the case that the claim is within time limit. importer is said to have claimed consolidated refund vide letter dated 6-7-1989 and they have submitted copy of postal receipt dated 8-7-1989 in order to prove that claim is within time. however, these documents cannot be considered as evidence merely on the fact that it shows the address of asstt. collector, refund, air cargo complex, bombay. it does not show the contents of the envelop." the reason for the aforesaid ground indicates very clearly that revenue is not contesting the receipt of the letter dated 6-7-1989 (which is a consolidated refund claim made for 14bs/e in question). relying on the catena of decisions and the fact that the consolidated claim for 14b/es was submitted and is on the customs house records at the commissioner airport, we do not find any case has been made out by the revenue, in this appeal, to reject the refund claims made in this case on the grounds of improper forum for filing the said claims or time-bar. a perusal of section 27 of the customs act does not show any particular format to have been prescribed therein. therefore, the other ground that the refund claim not being in proper format do not and will not call for rejection of the claim which has been made vide their letter dated 6-7-1989 as placed in records.5. in this view of the matter, we find no merits in the revenue's appeal filed before us. the same is, therefore, rejected.

Full Judgment

1. Revenue is in appeal. The Respondents have imported various consignments of Cable Sealing Systems and filed refund claims on the ground that the item was correctly assessable under CTH 8547. Along with other such importers, a Writ Petition in 1989 on the classification of the said item was filed in the Bombay High Court. The refund in this appeal pertain to the period prior to the filing of the said Writ petition. By Order dated 2/3-3-1993 the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held the item to be classified under CTH 8547. The refund claims were therefore, required to be decided; the respondents herein had filed a consolidated refund claim vide their letter dated 6-7-1989 and this consolidated refund claim letter filed separately has not been considered by the Revenue on the ground that - (a) not filed within time prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962; (b) since this letter was addressed to Asstt. Commissioner, Customs, Airport, Sahar, Mumbai and not to Asstt. Commissioner Customs, Refund, Air Cargo, Sahar, Mumbai, the refund application which was not in the proper format was also not to be valid with the appropriate and proper officer to be sanctioned the said refund.

However, on 6B/Es, refund claim was sanctioned and in the case of other B/Es the refund claim was rejected as it was found that separate refund claims filed were hit by limitation of time by reckoning the date of filing of the separate refund claims in this case.

3. This Tribunal vide order No. C.II/97/WZB/2001, dated 9-1-2001 after considering the appeal of the respondents herein, ordered while allowing the appeal as remand, that the Commissioner (Appeals) shall call for the case records and satisfy himself as to the validity of the importers' claim of having sent letters and consolidated claim vide their letter dated 5-5-1997 and 6-7-1989 and its despatch and thereafter determine the claims. The question of appropriate forum for filing the refund claims was not determined or adversely found/held, in this order of remand, by the Bench. That issue to our mind, therefore, stands settled.

"As per Order-in-Appeal dated 12-12-2001 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), postal receipt dated 8-7-1989 has been relied upon as evidence to decide the case that the claim is within time limit.

Importer is said to have claimed consolidated refund vide letter dated 6-7-1989 and they have submitted copy of postal receipt dated 8-7-1989 in order to prove that claim is within time. However, these documents cannot be considered as evidence merely on the fact that it shows the address of Asstt. Collector, Refund, Air Cargo Complex, Bombay. It does not show the contents of the envelop." The reason for the aforesaid ground indicates very clearly that Revenue is not contesting the receipt of the letter dated 6-7-1989 (which is a consolidated refund claim made for 14Bs/E in question). Relying on the catena of decisions and the fact that the consolidated claim for 14B/Es was submitted and is on the Customs House records at the Commissioner Airport, we do not find any case has been made out by the Revenue, in this appeal, to reject the refund claims made in this case on the grounds of improper forum for filing the said claims or time-bar. A perusal of Section 27 of the Customs Act does not show any particular format to have been prescribed therein. Therefore, the other ground that the refund claim not being in proper format do not and will not call for rejection of the claim which has been made vide their letter dated 6-7-1989 as placed in records.

5. In this view of the matter, we find no merits in the Revenue's appeal filed before us. The same is, therefore, rejected.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Customs, Acc vs India Extrusion Same Subject Customs Same Judge J Balasundaram, Vice-, S T S.S.