The protest, therefore, embodied in the letter aforesaid was number in respect of any of these companysignments.
1931 dated 10 4 69 1 Months 50,512.71 23 7 1968 D. No.
Collector of Customs, Madras.
Since he was an officer lower in rank than the Assistant Collector of Customs the appellant filed five applications before the Assistant Collector under section 27 1 of the Customs Act, 1962 hereinafter referred to as the Act, for refund of the excess amount of duty charged.
In other words, the appellant took the stand that if a custom duty would have been charged on V. P. Latex under item 39 then the amount would have been less to the extent of Rs.
It, therefore, claimed the refund of the said amount, the details of which are as follows Bill No.
1644 dated 8 4 69 31/4 Months 50,305.53 24 6 1968 D. No.
The appellant wrote a letter on February 8, 1968 to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras making out a case therein that V. P. Latex was assessable to duty under item 39 ICT.
Thus there was a delay varying between 1 month to 4 months in the filing of each of the applications for refund.
68 dated 10 4 69 4 Months 52,106.18 1 6 1968 3,74,879.49 Under section 27 1 of the Act the application for refund had to be made before the expiry of six months from the date of payment of duty, the date of payment being the date of the bill in each case.
On five companysignments of V. P. Latex imported by the appellant in the year 1968 custom duty was charged under item 87 by the Appraiser pursuant to his order of assessment.
4844 4848 of 1972 dated 25th November 1972 of the Central Govt.,
and date Date of Delay Amount claim for refund D. NO.
The revisions were dismissed by the Central Government by their order dated November 29, 1972 stating therein The Govt.
of India have carefully companysidered the reasons advanced by the petitioners for their failure to prefer the claims for refund within the time stipulated under section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, but see numberjustification to interfere with the appellate orders.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
Appeals by Special Leave from the orders Nos.
A companyntervailing duty under item 15 A of the Central Excise Tariff in accordance with the Central Salt and Excise Act, 1944 is also charged if the article imported is number treated as raw rubber.
The custom duty charged under item 87 is much more than the one chargeable under item 39.
The appeals to the Appellate Collector of Customs filed under section 128 1 b of the Act failed.
V. Patel and K. R. Nambiyar for the Appellant.
L. Sanghi and Girish Chander for the Respondents.
The appellant took the matter in revision to the Central Government under section 131.
Ministry of Finance, Govt.
1565 1569/73.
The Customs authorities of the Government of India have been charging custom duty on V. P. Latex under the residuary item 87 of the Indin Tariff Act, 1934 instead of ICT 39 an item meant for charging duty on raw rubber.
It imports several raw materials including Pyratex Vinyl Pyridine Latex used in the manufacture of rubber tyres and tubes.
These appeals were filed from the said order after obtaining special leave of this Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J. The appellant companypany in these appeals by special leave is a manufacturer of rubber tyres and tubes.
1024 dated 27 6 69 3 Months 60,339.97 18 9 1968 D. No.
of India.
The Assistant Collector of Customs dismissed the applications on the ground that they were filed out of time.
Finally in this letter a protest was made for the assessment of duty under item 87 on V. P. Latex imported by the companypany in the past.
A letter written on July 15, 1968 was a letter written at a point of time when two out of the five companysignments had been imported but three were imported after the writing of this letter by the appellant to the Asstt.
1132 dated 8 4 69 2 Months 1,61,615.10 21 8 1968 D. No.
3,74,879.49 on the five companysignments in question.
