9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 1005X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts filed the refund claim on 25-12-2007 which was received in the office of the Assistant Commissioner Central Excise, Bilaspur on 28-12-2007 on the ground that the appellant has removed the goods in the month of October, 2006 particularly on 13-10-2006 and 30-10-2006 on the ground that they have inadvertently computed excess duty at the rate of 16% ad valoram instead of 8% ad valoram which result ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . UOI reported in 2002 (143) E.L.T. 299 (Del.) wherein the Hon ble High Court of Delhi has held that payment of excess duty owing to calculation mistake at the importers end on account of faulty functioning of computer, there is a calculation error and the appellants were entitled for refund claim. He further relied on the decision of Indian Oil Corporation v. C.C.E., New Delhi reported in 2010 (2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... importer or Central Excise officers whereas in the case of Indian Oil Corpn. cited supra, the facts were that credit of excess duty was taken by the appellants in their personal ledger account which was asked by the Assistant Commissioner to file a refund application for duty already paid. Hence, the above said decisions are having no relevance with the facts of this case. As the lower authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
