9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 993X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic errors in Bill of Entries – In identical circumstances, tribunal in case of De Nora India Ltd. [2012 (12) TMI 384 - CESTAT, Mumbai] has allowed amendment to BE and even granted refund of excess duties involved – Impugned order did not properly examine aspect of rectification/modification in Bill of Entries, despite given past developments in present case – Therefore impugned order is unsustainable and accordingly same is quashed and set aside – Decided in favour of Appellant. - C/390-391/2012-Mum - Final Order Nos. A/1497-1498/2014-WZB/C-IV(SMB) - Dated:- 22-8-2014 - Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (J) Shri Saurabh Dixit, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri A.K. Singh, Addl. Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 29-9-2009 condoned delay of 12 months 29 days in filing appeal and also allowed amendment to Bill of Entry under Section 149. The revenue department challenged such Order-in-Appeal dated 29-9-2009 before this Tribunal, which vide the final order dated 29-3-2010, held that delay was not condonable. However, allowed the Appellant to approach the Customs department with request to amend Bill of Entry under Section 149, as per settled legal position. 2.3 However, despite clear findings by higher appellate authorities, and despite the remand terms in earlier order of CESTAT, being order dated 29-3-2010, the adjudicating authority, refused to amend the Bill of Entry, vide two separate Orders-in-Original dated 23-2-2011. The impugned appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant was not eligible to any refund in the present case. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the facts are not in dispute. I also find that both earlier Order-in-Appeal dated 11-5-2009 and CESTAT order dated 29-3-2010 have been accepted by the revenue authorities and no appeal have been filed against them by the revenue authorities. 6.1 It stands established that there were certain clerical/arithmetic errors in the Bill of Entries, which needed to be corrected as per the above two orders, in terms of the specific findings contained therein. As such, the lower authorities were in error in outrightly refusing/rejecting such request made by the Appellant. I find merit in the submission made by the appellant that the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
