The Revenue is questioning the validity and companyrectness of clause 3 of the said order whereby the High Court has directed the authorities under the Customs Act number to reject the respondents application for refund on the ground that it is time barred and to dispose it of on merits.
The order reads 1 The Petitioners will file an application for refund, in respect of the companysignments imported as referred to in this Petition, in the prescribed form as per the amended section 27 of the Customs Acts 1962, within 2 weeks from today.
The prayer in the writ petition was to issue an appropriate writ, order and direction to the Customs Authorities to refund the excess customs duty levied upon the goods imported by the respondent and companylected from it.
The appellants state that they companytested the writ petition but the High Court passed the impugned minutes of the order.
The writ petition was filed in the year 1987.
This appeal is directed against, what is called, Minutes of the order made by the Bombay High Court on 23rd June, 1995.
The respondent also claimed interest at the rate cf 18 per annum on the said order.
The duty as demanded by the authorities was paid by the respondent and the goods cleared.
The respondent imported certain goods between February 1983 and July 1985.
The appellant says that the respondent preferred an appeal which was rejected by the appellate authority and that instead of filing the further appeal, the respondent approached the Bombay High Court.
thereafter, the respondent filed the refund application.
There was a dispute between the respondent and the Customs Authorities with respect to the classification of goods.
No order as to companyts.
The Petition is disposed of accordingly.
He says that he did number file any appeal but approached the High Court straight away.
Leave granted.
Heard the companynsel for the parties.
The respondent disputes this statement.
