2008 (4) TMI 83 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay appeal was filed 13 days after expiry of the limitation Dept. was misled by wrong mention of the date of receipt of the copy of the order delay is not deliberate so it is condonable - serial number wrongly mentioned in B/E resulted in excess payment of duty where refund is the logical consequence of correction of some clerical u/s 154 the person should not be denied the benefit merely because he didn t prefer appeal against the assessment order appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Refund claim rejection due to non-filing of appeal against assessment order.

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appeal by the Revenue was delayed by 13 days beyond the three-month limitation period. The Tribunal considered whether there was a reasonable cause for the delay. The Department cited misleading information on the date of receipt of the order as the reason for the delay. The Tribunal accepted this explanation, emphasizing that the delay was not deliberate. The Tribunal distinguished this case from previous decisions where delay applications were not filed within the allowed time. The Tribunal ultimately allowed the condonation of delay application and proceeded with the appeal.

Issue 2: Refund Claim Rejection Due to Non-Filing of Appeal Against Assessment Order:
The appeal challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) decision setting aside the Deputy Commissioner's order rejecting a refund claim. The appellant imported Cutting Tools but mistakenly mentioned a different serial number in the bill of entry, resulting in higher duty assessment. The appellant sought a refund of the excess amount paid. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the refund claim, stating that without challenging the assessment through an appeal, the refund claim was not maintainable. The Tribunal analyzed the case, noting that the mistake in mentioning the wrong serial number was an accidental slip. The Tribunal referred to Section 154 of the Customs Act, allowing for the correction of such errors. It held that the appellant should not be denied the benefit of the remedy under this section. The Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's reliance on previous Supreme Court decisions, emphasizing that the benefit of correction under Section 154 should not be denied solely because an appeal was not filed. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to remand the case for appropriate action by the Deputy Commissioner (Refund) in accordance with the law, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of correcting accidental errors under Section 154 of the Customs Act and highlighting the need to consider the logical consequences of such corrections on refund claims.