9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was made on 30.12.2009 which is barred by Section 27 - as per Section 27 of the Customs Act, the time for filing the refund claim has to be strictly followed and the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant saying that it was only a deposit and not the duty is not tenable in law - the time limit as prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act is applicable in the present case. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C/26682/2013-SM - 22431/2017 - Dated:- 12-10-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Shri B. Venugopal, Advocate For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, Deputy Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S. S. Garg The present appeal has been filed against the impugned order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndicating the correct details of the subject Bill of Entry. This certificate was issued in lieu of amendment of Bill of Entry. In the meanwhile the importers M/s. BEML, Bangalore had filed a refund claim on 16.04.2009 for ₹ 42,26,975/- (Rupees Forty Two Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Five only) being the duty paid in excess on account of wrong adoption of exchange rates. However, the refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs by an order bearing Order-in-Original No. 100/2012 dated 13.03.2012 on the ground that M/s. BEML, Bangalore had neither paid nor borne the duty and also had not accounted the said amount as receivables in their books of accounts. It was also held that the refund cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He also submitted that the excess duty paid on account of clerical error is only a deposit and not the duty and therefore the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act are not applicable. He also submitted that BEML had also filed a refund application on 16.04.2009 but their claim was rejected on 13.03.2012 on the ground that they have neither paid the duty nor borne the duty in terms of Section 27 of the Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following decisions: a) INA Bearings (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC (Import), Nhava Sheva 2014 (313) E.L.T. 815 (Mumbai) b) Keshari Steels Vs. CC, Bombay 2000 (115) E.L.T. 320 (Bom.) c) Collector V. Keshari Steels 2000 (121) E.L.T. A139 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals) has considered all the decisions relied upon by the appellant and has rightly come to the conclusion that the time limit as prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act is applicable in the present case. Further the learned Commissioner has observed that the present case is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Minerals Metals Trading Corporation of India Vs. CC reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 89 and the relevant para is reproduced herein below: 9. Section 154 only mentions about corrections of clerical and arithmetical error and it does not mention about the consequential relief of refund of those amounts which accrued due to the above-said corrections. The Supreme Court has also held in the Doaba Cooperati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1962 and there is no other provision providing for such refund by the Customs authorities. Section 154 speaks of only clerical or arithmetical directions. In such circumstances, the application for refund being beyond the time limit was rejected by the lower authorities. We also observe that merely because the Bill of Entry was corrected in view of Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, the refund cannot be granted beyond the period of limitation contemplated under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and there is no case made out to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals). In the result, the appeal is rejected. Further I also find that the decision relied upon by the appellants are not applicable i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
