Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sail Vs. Commr. of Customs

Sail vs Commr. of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta Decided Dec 20, 2005
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/41213

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sail

Respondent

Commr. of Customs

Legal References

Reported In
(2006)(104)ECC604

Excerpt

1. heard shri p.k. das, ld. advocate on the appeal filed by the appellant. this is a case relating to the refund of customs duty. the page 0605 appellant has imported notch filters in 1992. the assessment was filed by the customs. they paid the duty and cleared the goods.they filed the refund claim in 1992 itself which was rejected by the assistant commissioner as time barred. he submits that the observation by the original adjudicating authority for their refund claim is time barred is not correct. he, further, submits that the commissioner (appeal) cannot take a ground which is not in the original order or in the show cause notice.2. heard shri a. here, ld. jdr for the revenue. he submits that in this case it is fact that the assessment was never challenged by the appellant. no appeal was filed by the appellant against the assessment order passed by the customs. as such, the assessment has become final and no refund cannot be claimed unless the assessment is challenged. in view of this he submits that the commissioner has passed the order correctly and the appeal be dismissed.3. i have heard both the sides and the submissions made by them. i find that this is a fact that in this case the assessment was not challenged by the appellant. they have filed the refund claim. the commissioner (appeal) has rejected their appeal on the basis that the appellant have not challenged the assessment order. as such, the refund claim is not maintainable. i find no infirmity in the order passed by the commissioner (appeal) as this view has also been confirmed by various courts and tribunal. in view of this i upheld the order passed by the commissioner (appeal) and reject the appeal filed by the appellant.

Full Judgment

1. Heard Shri P.K. Das, Ld. Advocate on the appeal filed by the Appellant. This is a case relating to the refund of Customs Duty. The Page 0605 Appellant has imported Notch Filters in 1992. The assessment was filed by the Customs. They paid the duty and cleared the goods.

They filed the refund claim in 1992 itself which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner as time barred. He submits that the observation by the Original Adjudicating Authority for their refund claim is time barred is not correct. He, further, submits that the Commissioner (Appeal) cannot take a ground which is not in the original order or in the show cause notice.

2. Heard Shri A. Here, Ld. JDR for the Revenue. He submits that in this case it is fact that the assessment was never challenged by the Appellant. No appeal was filed by the appellant against the assessment order passed by the customs. As such, the assessment has become final and no refund cannot be claimed unless the assessment is challenged. In view of this he submits that the Commissioner has passed the order correctly and the appeal be dismissed.

3. I have heard both the sides and the submissions made by them. I find that this is a fact that in this case the assessment was not challenged by the appellant. They have filed the refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeal) has rejected their appeal on the basis that the appellant have not challenged the assessment order. As such, the refund claim is not maintainable. I find no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) as this view has also been confirmed by various courts and tribunal. In view of this I upheld the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) and reject the appeal filed by the appellant.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial