9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ravindran, Member (J)]. -1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 14(CRC) /2007(JNCH), dated 26-3-2007. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant imported Sub Assembly of Indoor Unit with Remote Controller wall Mount Type 1.5T etc. vide Bill of Entry No. 743220, dated 12-4-2006. The said Bill of Entry was presented for assessment before the authorities along with all the evidence like commercial invoice, packing list, Bill of Lading etc. The said Bill of Entry was filed and the number of packets, which were declared as "consignment of 3624 packets", while calculating the amount of duty payable, the value was considered for the quantity of 3931 packets, which was invoiced by the foreign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submits that the issue in this case is squarely covered by decision of the Apex Court. It is his submission that it was for appellant to first challenge the assessment of Bill of Entry to come to a conclusion that there was an error. He submits that provisions of Section 149 do not cover this kind of error. He also submits that both the lower authorities have correctly come to the conclusion that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries (supra) will cover the issue. He submits that the impugned order is correct and does not require any interference. 5. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. From perusal of the records, I find that the appellant had cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The said section clearly indicates that correction can be done suo motu or by application of the assessee. In this case it is undisputed that the appellant had received and cleared 3624 sets of sub assembly and value declared was of and for 3931 sets. After clearance of the said sets of sub assembly the appellant found error. There is no allegation in the show cause notice nor any finding by the lower authorities that there was mis-declaration on part of the appellant. It that be so, to my mind, the error apparent on face of the record should have been rectified and refund should have been granted to the appellant. The application or non-application of Section 149 need not be gone into as it is very clear that provision of Section 154 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
