- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the Order -in -Appeal No. 40/2008, dated 4 -3 -2008, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore.
(2.) HEARD both sides.
(3.) THE relevant facts, in brief, are as follows : (a) The appellants imported a consignment of heat detectors and filed Bill of Entry No. 236380, dated 30 -8 -2006. The declared quantity was 1000 units of heat detectors valued at Rs. 2,61,644/ - covered by Air Waybill No. HAWB 608040 and the weight was mentioned as 18 Kgs. (b) The Bill of Entry was cleared under RMS procedure and there was no examination of the goods. (c) The goods were taken for clearance on the same date after payment of duty amounting to Rs. 96,119/ -. (d) CHA noticed that the number of heat conductors in the package was only 100 as against 1000 units and therefore, sought for refund of duty paid relating to 900 units not received amounting to Rs. 86,507.10 vide their letter dated 6 -9 -2006. (e) The department vide letter dated 13 -10 -2006 informed the importer to file a claim in proper format enclosing all the relevant documents in support of the claim. (f) The importer filed the claim in proper format along with relevant documents on 28 -7 -2007. (g) The original authority rejected their refund claim as hit by limitation by treating 27 -8 -2007 as the date of filing the refund claim. (h) The Commissioner upheld the order of the original authority. The learned advocate narrating the above events submits that the Bill of Entry filed by them had reference to the connected Air Waybill Number indicating the weight of the consignment as 18 Kgs. He also submits that 1000 units of heat detectors were imported on earlier occasions with declared weight of 157 Kgs./220 Kgs. Obviously, 18 Kgs consignment could not have pertained to 1000 units of heat detectors. The original authority is not disputing this fact. He submits that the CHA, who was authorised by the importer, had brought the discrepancy to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner and sought for refund claim. Subsequent filing their claim in proper format was at the direction of the department and on this ground, refund claim should not have been rejected on the issue of time bar.;