9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Claim for refund of excess duty paid, rejection of claim for refund, application for correction of clerical/arithmetical error u/s 154 of the Customs Act, rejection of application, appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), rejection of appeals, appeal before the Tribunal.
In the present case, the appellants imported paper and cleared it on payment of duty. Subsequently, they discovered a clerical error in the calculation of the value on the invoice. They filed a claim for refund of the excess duty paid due to this error. However, the claim was rejected, and a show-cause notice was issued for the rejection. The assessee then filed an application u/s 154 of the Customs Act for correction of the error, which was also rejected. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of both the claim for refund and the application for rectification. The appeals were brought before the Tribunal challenging these decisions. Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the rejection of the application u/s 154 was based on the grounds that the error was not committed by a customs officer but by the foreign supplier. However, the Tribunal referred to previous decisions and emphasized that the existence of a clerical/arithmetical mistake in the assessment order necessitates consideration, regardless of who made the mistake. Citing precedents such as ABB Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, Celcius Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, and Goa Shipyard Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, ACC, Sahar, the Tribunal held that the application should not have been rejected solely on the grounds mentioned in the adjudication order. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for a fresh decision on the application for rectification and the claim for refund. The Tribunal further directed that fresh orders should be passed after providing a reasonable opportunity for the assessees to present their defense. As a result, the appeals were allowed by way of remand, ensuring a fair consideration of the application and the claim for refund.
|
