9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods covered under Invoice No. 1025263, dated 15-10-03 was paid twice by the appellant. The refund claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that the duty was paid on 14-11-03 and on 23-10-05 and refund claim having been filed on 18-10-04 i.e. after the expiry of six months, hence refund claim is time barred. On an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld the same view and dismissed the appeal on the question of time barred. Hence this appeal. 3. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that it is an admitted fact that the duty paid second time i.e. on 14-11-03 was a mistake and not liable to be paid by them. He submits that the Deptt. itself has admitted this fact vide their letter dated 13-4-05. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is also observed that B/E No. 571161, dated 20-10-03 was also filed earlier by the same importer vide Invoice No. 1025263, dated 15-10-03 wherein 164 pieces of Wrist Watches assorted types were imported. In this case duty amounting to Rs. 765129 was deposited vide TR-6 Challan No. 97752169, dated 23-10-03. Further as per examination report on the B/E No. 584308, dated 12-11-03, it is observed that 164 pieces of Wrist Watches were found short. This quantity of 164 Wrist Watches corresponds to Invoice No. 1025263, dt. 15-10-03 pertaining to Bill of Entry No. 571161/20-10-03 as discussed above. Thus, as per the documents submitted by you, it appear that custom duty covered under Invoice No. 1025263, dated 15-10-03 has been deposited twice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Larger Bench in the case of Hindustan Fertilizer Corpn. (supra) wherein the Tribunal held at Para 49 : 49. The next question that arises for decision is whether Section 154 provides only for collection of errors, or whether it also provides for relief consequent to such correction. If the argument that relief flowing as a result of correction under Section 154 cannot be granted is to be accepted, then the provisions of Section 154 would be rendered nugatory in all cases in which errors are traced after 6 months from the date of payment of duty. This could not have been the intention of the Legislature whilst enacting Section 154. A power vested in an authority to correct a mistake or error includes a power to grant consequent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
