(1) THESE appeals are preferred against the order of the government of India in a revision petition filed under Section 36 of the central Excise Act, as it obtained at the relevant time.

(2) THE appellant imported certain industrial fittings for 400 KV Transmission Lines in the year 1977. He presented the Bill of Entry on 26/2/1977. He classified the said imported goods under the then obtaining tariff item 73.33/40 and paid the appropriate duty thereon. The duty payable under the said tariff item at that time was 100% duty and 20% additional duty. Having paid the duty, he cleared the goods. Subsequently, the appellant says, he entered into correspondence with the Customs Authorities regarding the appropriate tariff item under which the said goods ought to have been classified. He says that he received the letter dated 26/10/1978 from the authorities, which according to the appellant, supports his contention that the said goods must be subjected to duty not under tariff item 73.33/40 but under tariff item 85.18/27 which attracts a far lower rate of duty.

(3) BE that as it may, the appellant filed an application for refund on 9/10/1978, even before receiving the letter dated 26/10/1978, which, of course, has not been produced before us. The application was filed admittedly beyond the period of six months prescribed by Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Assistant Collector rejected the same on the ground that the application was barred under Section 27. The appeal before the Collector met the same fate as also the revision before the government.

(4) IN these appeals it is submitted by Shri A.K. Ganguli, learned counsel for the appellant that the period of six months prescribed under Section 27(1 applies only where the duty is paid in pursuance of an order of assessment. Learned counsel submitted that in this case, there was no order of assessment as such, and therefore, the period of limitation did never begin to run. The second submission urged by Mr Ganguli is that by virtue of Section 72 of the Contract the bar of limitation contained in Section 27 cannot be invoked by the authorities to reject the appellants application. We are unable to see substance in either of these contentions.

(5) SECTION 45(1 of the Customs Act provides that "save as otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force, all imported goods unloaded in a customs area shall remain in the custody of such person as may be approved by the Collector of Customs until they are cleared for home consumption or are warehoused or are transhipped in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VIII".

(6) SECTION 46 provides for filing of the bill of entry. It says that the importer of any goods other than goods intended for transit or transhipment, shall make entry thereof by presenting to the proper officer a bill of entry for home consumption or warehousing in the prescribed form.

(7) SECTION 17(1 says that if an importer has filed a bill of entry under Section 46, the goods shall be examined and tested by the proper officer. Sub- section (2 of Section 17 says that after such examination and testing, the duty, if any, leviable on such goods shall save as otherwise provided in Section 85 be assessed.

(8) SS. (1 of Section 47 says that where the proper officer is satisfied that any goods entered for home consumption are not prohibited goods and the importer has paid the duty and any charges payable under this Act in respect of the same, the proper officer may permit clearance of goods only after the duty assessed is paid along with other charges, if any, payable according to law.

(9) READING S. 47 and 17 together, it is clear beyond any doubt, that as soon as the bill of entry is filed, the proper officer examines the goods, tests them, assesses the proper duty and permits clearance of goods only after the duty and other charges, if any, are paid. In the scheme of the Act, there is no room for c