Find a Lawyer

APPEAL CASE NO.7(895)CU/IB OF 2000(PB), DECIDED ON 19TH OCTOBER, 2002. versus APPEAL CASE NO.7(895)CU/IB OF 2000(PB), DECIDED ON 19TH OCTOBER, 2002.

Customs Act 1969 Sections 33 and 156 (1) C Customs Act (VIII of 1878), Section 40 Section RO 1108 (I) / 94, Dated 14 11 1994 CBR Letter C No. 10 (122) Cossation Ref / 96, Dates 28 2 1996 General Customs and Tariff Laws Orders Manual, Rule 1229 Cus, I / 37, dated 18 12 1937, will be claimed within six months. Claiming at the same time, the claimant is required to file such a refund within 6 months of the date of the decision / order so the withdrawal granted in his favor is punishable as illegal and arbitrary; The recovery of money was also illegal and the appellant should return to the lesser claimant without waiting for any formal refund claim under section 33 of the Customs Act, 1969, the Appellate Tribunal observed that in the letter of the Central Board of Revenue. No. 10 (122) Case Ref / 96, dated 28 2 1996 was not a valid justification for the provisions of section 33 (1) of the Customs Act, 1969, because the appellant Nada did not pay on his own behalf through any mistake, ignorance or misunderstanding, so a refund was allowed. The appellate tribunal, if otherwise admissible and admissible, was set aside and applied for a de novo decision, without applying the time limits set out under section 33 (1) of the Customs Act, 1969 Order Was made, if not otherwise acceptable and acceptable, to the extent of section 33 (1) of the Customs Act, 1969 patent advocate from Mirpur (AJK) lawyer