9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 995. Subsequently, they filed an application for refund on 7-3-1996 on the ground that due to mistake by the supplier, the invoice for the goods had been made out for air freight instead of sea freight. The goods had actually been shipped by sea. The Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, by his order dated 11-3-1996 rejected the claim as time barred beyond six months period prescribed for refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Asstt. Commissioner s order was challenged in appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order setting aside the Asstt. Commissioner s order on the ground that the refund claim has to be dealt with in terms of Section 154 of the Customs Act and not under Section 27 of the Customs Act, bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Entry itself constitutes an appealable order as has been decided by the Tribunal and the correction of an arithmetical or clerical error therein has to be carried out under Section 154. The ld. Counsel also cited the case law in the case of Southern Sulphates and Chemicals (P) Ltd. - 1986 (24) E.L.T. 589 (Tribunal) and the majority decision in the case of Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation v. Collector of Customs - 1993 (63) E.L.T. 648 (Tribunal) for the proposition that clerical mistake in the Bill of Entry for computation of duty has to be corrected under Section 154 and also that Section 154 of the Customs Act is independent of Section 27 and relief under Section 154 can be granted at any time as no time limit has ben prescribed in tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... computing of duty in one case by the comptist on the Bill of Entry, and in another case of Hindustan Fertilizer there was a clerical error due to wrong calculation of the first item in the Bill of Entry. The mistake in the present case is certainly not of this nature. The invoice did not show separate freight and the Bill of Entry has been assessed correctly on the value as declared by the respondents themselves. It was only subsequently, that the fact of supplier having charged the air freight on the consignment shipped by sea was found out after appellants entered into correspondence with the supplier. Therefore in our view, this is not a case covered by Section 154 which is confined to clerical or arithmetical mistake in a decision or to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
