JUDGMENT V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C. J. 1. We think the learned Judge was right in the view that he took. Under section 4 of the Finance Act 14 of 1971 certain regulatory duty of excise was imposed on the import of cashew nuts. Under the terms of a notification exemption from the duty thus imposed could be earned under certain terms and conditions. The relevant notification dated 20th April 1972 reads as follows: "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-s.(1) of S.25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) read with sub-s.(4) of S.4 of the Finance Act, 1971 (14 of 1971), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the Public Interest so to do hereby exempts raw cashew nuts from the whole of the regulatory duty of customs leviable thereon under the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance) No. 38 Customs, dated the 17th March 1972, subject to the following conditions, namely:-- (i) that the importer makes a declaration at the time of import that the goods are being imported for processing and reexport; (ii) that the goods are reexported in the form of cashew kernels with six months of the date of importation or within such extended period not exceeding one year, as the Collector of Customs may allow; and (iii) that the weight of cashew kernels exported is not less than 25 per cent of the weight of cashew nuts imported, or where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs concerned that the kernels were obtained only from imported raw cashew nuts, such lower percentage of the weight of the cashewnuts imported as the Collector of Customs may in each case determine: Provided that the importer executes a bond with such surety or sufficient security as the collector of customs approves, undertaking. (a) to reexport the goods after processing within six months of the date of importation or within such extended period not exceeding one year, as the Collector of Customs may allow; (b) to produce the cashew kernels before the Collector of Customs prior to reexport; and (c) to pay the duty if the reexport does not take place within stipulated period". The petitioner appellant imported raw nuts in two lots under a licence dated 8th December 1971. The petitioner appellant imported raw nuts in two lots under a licence dated 8th December 1971. Duty in full was paid by two payments made on 2nd May 1972 and 5th May 1972. He applied for refund of duty on 13th December 1972 on the ground that no duty was in fact payable, that he was eligible to exemption under the terms of the notification, and the duty had been paid mistakenly as he was unaware of the exemption. His claim was rejected by Ext. P1 order which was confirmed on appeal (vide Ext. P2) and again on further revision (vide Ext. P3). The writ petition to quash these orders was dismissed by the learned Judge on the ground that the application for refund was barred by time. 2. S.27(1) of the Customs Act in so far as it is relevant provides: "27. Claim for refund of duty.-- (1) Any person claiming refund of any duty paid by him in pursuance of an order of assessment made by an officer of customs lower in rank than an Assistant Collector of Customs may make an application for refund of such duty to the Assistant Collector of Customs before the expiry of six months from the date of payment of duty: Provided that the limitation of six months shall not apply where any duty has been paid under protest. Explanation:-- Where any duty is paid provisionally under S.18, the period of six months shall be computed from the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof. * * * * " The section provides for refund of duty paid in pursuance of an order of assessment; the application for refund shall be made before the expiry of six months from the date of payment of duty. The argument was that there was no order of assessment, and therefore the duty was not paid in pursuance of any order of assessment. The appellant had paid the duty in full by two payments made on the two dates mentioned earlier. Under S.45 of the Act, the goods could be cleared only on payment of duty assessed. The section reads: "45. The appellant had paid the duty in full by two payments made on the two dates mentioned earlier. Under S.45 of the Act, the goods could be cleared only on payment of duty assessed. The section reads: "45. (1) 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 transshipped in accordance with the provisions of Chap.8. (2) The person having custody of any imported goods in a customs area, whether under the provisions of sub-s.(1) or under any law for the time being in force,-- (a) shall keep a record of such goods and send a copy thereof to the proper officer; (b) shall not permit such goods to be removed from the customs area or otherwise dealt with except under and in accordance with the permission in writing of the proper officer". In the face of the section, we are unable to appreciate the contention on behalf of the appellant that no duty had been assessed and therefore he was not liable to pay the duty and that the same had been wrongly paid. Apart from the terms of the section, on the facts stated in paragraph 3 of the petition, the appellant had himself calculated the duty at a certain rate and paid the same, and the officer had accepted the payment. In the circumstances, we are unable to hold that there had been no order of assessment of duty. 3. On the question as to whether the application had been made within time, we agree with the learned Judge, on the dates mentioned and the facts disclosed. There is also insuperable obstacle against the appellant in claiming refund of duty. This was plainly and fairly recognised by counsel for the appellant himself. In order to earn exemption under the terms of the notification, the appellant has to comply strictly with the conditions and the terms imposed by the notification. That notification requires, inter alia, that the importer executes a bond with such surety or sufficient security and undertaking the three conditions mentioned under clauses (a) to (c) of the proviso to the notification. That notification requires, inter alia, that the importer executes a bond with such surety or sufficient security and undertaking the three conditions mentioned under clauses (a) to (c) of the proviso to the notification. No such bond was executed and no security was offered as required by the terms of the notification. Clearly therefore the appellant was disentitled to the exemption and the claim for refund was, on that ground again, unsustainable. We see no ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned judge. We dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.