9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri M. Ravi Rajendran, DR, for the Appellant. Shri Vijay Gupta, AR, for the Respondent. [Order]. This is an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 33/2010, dated 2-8-2010. 2. Heard both sides. 3.1 The respondent filed Shipping Bill No. 24407564, dated 22-11-2008 for export of Iron Ore Fines. The gross weight of Iron Ore Fines mentioned in the first page of Shipping Bill was 10500 MT whereas in other pages of the shipping Bill the quantity mentioned was 10271 MT. The value mentioned in the shipping bill was Rs. 2,78,43,551.19 and the export duty was assessed at Rs. 20,62,485/- and the same was paid on 24-11-2008. Let export orders were given on two dates i.e. on 24-11-2008 for a quanti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in reply of the respondent filed by them. He submitted that the quantity exported being only 10,100 MT the mistake appearing in some part of the shipping bill was liable to be corrected in terms of the Section 154. The refund should be consequently allowed without treating the same as time-barred. He also submitted that the claim of the department that there was, short shipment to the tune of 271 MT was incorrect as clearly evidenced by the mate receipt dated 25-11-2008 and Master s certificate dated 25-11-2008 and in the light of correct quantity having been mentioned in page one of the shipping bill. He also submitted that in the given circumstances, the refund was due consequent to amendment of clerical mistakes under Section 154 and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xport Orders were given on 24-11-2008 and on 25-11-2008 for a total quantity of 10271 MT; the value mentioned in the Shipping Bills was for a total quantity of 10271 MT and duty amount assessed was Rs. 20,62,485/-. The request for change of the quantity as 10100 MT also involves changes in quantities mentioned in Let Export Orders given by the officers, the price in the invoice and value of the consignment and the export duty mentioned in the shipping bill. All these entries could not be considered as clerical or arithmetical mistakes. These mistakes are attributable to the importer and not to the assessing officer. The appellant has not chosen to ask for correction of mistakes committed by them. The claimed discrepancy was brought to the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
