9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal is directed against the order-in-appeal No. 215(GR.IIC)/2006(JNCH) dt. 17.11.2006. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant filed Bill of Entry dt. 13.6.06 for import of 14.4MT of Tetrahydrofuran under DEPB Scheme. While calculating the amount of duty payable on such imports, the appellant's paid the duty on 28.8 MT instead of 14.4 MT and discharged the said amount of duty through DEPB pass book. The appellant filed an appeal against the assessment on Bill of Entry to Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that they have cleared only 14.40 MT and not 28.8 MT. The Commissioner (Appeals) came to the following conclusion. "I have gone through the records of the case. Delay in filing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of packages which were cleared by the said bill of entry is 80 drums and gross weight shown in the bill of entry 15.92 MT. He submits that when the gross weight 15.92 MT the net weight can never be 28.8 MT. He also produced before me a copy of the EDI report which was generated at the time of clearance of the consignment from the port. He submits that since the payment of duty on 28.80MT is an error, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and their appeal be allowed. 4. The Ld. SDR on the other hand submits that once the goods are cleared from the custody of Customs, re-assessment is not possible. It is his submission that the re-assessment can be resorted to only in situation where the goods were available for inspectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs, by debit in DEPB pass book. 6. It can be seen from the above factual matrix that the payment of the duty by the appellant is a arithmetical error on the face of the records. This arithmetical error could have been rectified by the lower authorities by themselves or on being pointed out by the assessee, under the provisions of Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. This my view is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Keshari Steels Vs.Collector of Customs, Bombay [2000 (115) E.L.T. 320 (Bom.)]. Since the position of the law remains settled that such kind of clerical error can be rectified, I do not find any reason for sustaining the impugned order. 7. The impugned order is set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
