9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. However, by mistake, they entered therein the value of 12 coils cleared earlier from the same lot. The Customs Officer assessed the duty on the value as declared. The appellants paid the duty on 11-7-1978. They discovered the mistake some two years later when on 8-9-1980 they addressed a letter to the Assistant Collector requesting him to make a suo motu refund of the excess amount paid due to clerical error. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim as it was filed much beyond the time limit of six months prescribed in Section 27(1) for making refund applications. In appeal, the Collector (Appeals) upheld the rejection. The appellants then filed a revision application before the Central Government which, on transfer of the proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... months, from the date of payment of duty: Provided that the limitation of one year or six months, as the case may be, shall not apply where any duty has been paid under protest. EXPLANATION. - Where any duty is paid provisionally under Section 18, the period of one year or six months, as the case may be, shall be computed from the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof. (2) If one receipt of any such application the Assistant Collector of Customs is satisfied that the whole or any part of the duty paid by the applicant should be refunded to him, he may make an order accordingly. (3) Where, as the result of any order passed in appeal or revision under this Act, refund of any duty becomes due to any person, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n which it was held that clerical mistake made in calculation of the amount of import duty could be corrected under Section 154. 5. The learned representative of the department stated that there was no clerical or arithmetical error in the order of assessment made by the customs officer. The error, if any, was in the bill of entry filed by the appellants and such an error could not be corrected under Section 154. For the same reason, the analogy of the Madras case aforesaid could not be applied to the appellants case. The learned representative argued that the application made by the appellants before the Assistant Collector involved refund of import duty the authority for which lay in Section 27 of the Act and nowhere else. 6. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the assessing customs officer s duty to check whether there is any undervaluation or overvaluation of goods. But he does so when he suspects something wrong. He then undertakes detailed investigations and checks the price declared with standard price lists or with his record of previous importations. He does not make such detailed investigation for each and every bill of entry. Thus, when he accepted the value as declared by the appellants in the bill of entry filed by them, it cannot be said that he made a clerical or arithmetical mistake which he should be called upon to correct under Section 154. 7. Even assuming that an error had arisen in his order of assessment due to an accidental slip or omission, be it by the appellants or by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
