REDINGTON INDIA LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petitions are filed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records from the first respondent in so far as it relates to his orders in Appeals in his proceedings No. C3/735/0/2006-AIR-C-Cus 923/06 and No. C3/736/0/2006-AIR-C-Cus 924/06 dated 18. 12. 2006 respectively and quash the said orders and direct the respondents to re-assess the Bill of entry Nos. 214385 and 281949 dated 23. 8. 2006 respectively giving benefit of Notification No. 6/06 dated 1. 3. 2006 and consequently grant refund of the Counter Veiling Duty (CVD) and cess on Counter Veiling Duty (CVD) collected illegally and without authority of law with interest at 15% per annum from the date of payment.

(2.) THE petitioner company imported 5250 numbers of Digital Video Disc described as "project Gotham Racing 3 x box English India Pal DVD" and 1000 numbers of Digital Video Disc described as "games Ox Box 360 English India P-RSP- item "vide Bill of Entry Nos. 214385 and 281949 dated 23. 8. 2006 from M/s. Micro Soft Regional Sales, Singapore. The goods were classified under CTH 85249999 and falls under chapter heading 8524 exempted from the levy of counter veiling duty vide Notification No. 6/2006 dated 1. 3. 2006. The goods were assessed basic duty at 12. 5%, 16% counter veiling duty, 2% cess, 2% Education Cess and 4% ACD on merits without applying the said notification and giving benefit of the said notification to the petitioner. The petitioner paid duty on 24. 8. 2006 and were awaiting speaking orders regarding assessment of duty. It is the case of the petitioner that on 27. 8. 2006 the petitioner realised that by mistake counter veiling duty has been levied, which they are not bound to pay. The petitioner, thereafter filed appeals on 22. 11. 2006 before the first respondent against the assessment orders claiming benefit of the notification No. 6/2006 dated 1. 3. 2006 and for refund of the excess duty collected without authority of law. That appeals have been rejected on the ground that the appeals have been filed belatedly by one day. According to the petitioner from the date of knowledge, the appeals have been filed well within the period of limitation. This rejection of the appeals by the reason of barred by limitation is put in issue before this Court.

(3.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Solicitor General.