9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (6) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the manufacture of machine tools. On the presentation of the Bill of Entry it was processed and the assessable value was determined as Rs. 1,71,925/- and accordingly basic custom duty, auxiliary customs duty etc. totalling Rs. 1,08,629.55 was collected. It appears that during the internal audit it was found that excess recovery of Rs. 11,320/-was effected from the appellants. Accordingly, the Assistant Collector Group H, New Customs House, Bombay vide his letter dated 15-6-1982 (said to have been received by the appellants on 16-6-1982) advised the appellants to file refund claim to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Refund Section. On receipt of the said advice, the appellants lodged their refund claim with the Assistant Collector of Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brought to its notice by the assessee, and where the authority concerned is the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals), by the Income-tax Officer also and also cited the case reported in 33 ITR 290. Shri Mehta also submitted that this Tribunal has also power of rectification of any mistake apparent from the record under sub-section (2) of Section 129B of the Customs Act and since this Section appears after Section 27 of the Act the latest Section i.e. to say Section 129B(2) will prevail and cited the case of Northern India Caterers (Private) Ltd. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1581. Elaborating further, he also cited the following cases to emphasise that it is well settled rule of interpretation that no part of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Miles (India) Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs, 1987 (30) E.L.T. 641 and Collector of Central Excise v. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills, 1988 (37) E.L.T. 478, we are not called upon to decide the issue afresh and relying upon the said decisions we hold that the refund claim lodged by the appellants was clearly time barred. 6. However, since the learned counsel for the appellants has raised a question that it is a case of arithmetical mistake apparent from the record, the same should be rectified by this Tribunal under sub-section (2) of Section 129B of the Customs Act, we would like to consider and decide the issue also to settle the law so far as this Tribunal is concerned. The said sub-section (2) of Section 129B of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of two sections i.e. to say Section 27 and 129B are quite different and therefore, the question of following the latter does not arise. Likewise the rules of interpretation as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, are not applicable to the instant case since there is no ambiguity in Section 27 of the Act. 7. Before we part with the case we, keeping in view the well known maxim that no act of the Court (for our purposes any act of the authority functioning under the Customs Act) should prejudice the interest of either party to the list would venture, to say, though it is not our function to suggest and formulate the law that the law should be amended on the lines of Section 152 of the CPC to enable the authorities funct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
