9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 993X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved in the case are that the appellant had imported Alkaline Battery cells and filed three Bill of Entry Nos. 784348, dated 11-4-2008, No. 748627, dated 14-1-2009 and No. 802936, dated 4-3-2009. However, since certain arithmetic/clerical errors had crept in the same, inasmuch as while MRP declared on imported goods was for 2 pc/4 pc pack, CVD was paid on basis of MRP wrongly assuming it to be "per piece" instead of per package. The Appellant had sought modification/rectification for such arithmetic/clerical mistake which had crept into the Bills of entry, vide their separate request letters before assessing officers. 2.1 Since the original authority had rejected such request, upon appeal, first Appellate authority, vide his Order-in-A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the first Appellate authority vide the impugned orders clearly ignored the earlier CESTAT order dated 29-3-2010 and also "the various case laws cited on the issue. It was further submitted that the impugned order, did not even bother to appreciate the basic facts involved, that the CESTAT had expressly permitted amendment of BE under Section 149 as per settled legal position, which order had attained finality. The impugned order also failed to appreciate that OIA dated 11-5-2009 had expressly permitted amendment to BE under Section 149, with consequential relief, which had also attained finality. It was also submitted that the impugned order has traversed beyond the scope of the proceedings and has ventured into the issue of "refund" and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Thiru Arooran (supra) did not involve any evidence. in existence on the date of clearance of goods, whereas in the present case admittedly proper evidences existed as required under Section 149 and hence, the said case law is not relevant to the issue on hand. 6.2 I also find merit in the contention that under somewhat identical circumstances, the CESTAT in the case of De Nora India Ltd. - 2012 (285) E.L.T. 266 (Tri.-Mumbai) has allowed amendment to the BE and even granted refund of excess duties involved. The impugned order did not properly examine the aspect of rectification/modification in the Bill of Entries, despite the given past developments in the present case. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
