9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal could be filed by 7-5-2005. It was filed 13 days after expiry of the limitation on 20-5-2005. 2. The objection of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the appeal could be filed along with condonation of delay application. In the instant case it was filed after inordinate delay only when respondent pointed out the defect. We are of the view that the fact that the condonation of delay application has been filed after filing of the appeal and there has been delay during the intervening period is not relevant. What is relevant is whether the applicant had a reasonable cause for not preferring appeal within time. In other words, the applicant is merely required to explain the delay of thirteen days, in the instant case, in fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat public interest may suffer if appeal is dismissed merely on the ground of some delay. We are of the view that the decisions relied upon on behalf of the respondent are not applicable in the instant case. We are satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate. The delay is accordingly condoned and the COD application is thus allowed. Appeal No. 489 of 2005 5. After the above order was dictated Counsel for the parties stated that since the appeal has been also listed for final disposal under the heading 'Regular Matters', the appeal may be finally heard and disposed of. We, accordingly, heard the parties. 6. This appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the order of the Deputy Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng higher than @ 25%. The case of the respondent is that had duty been worked out @ 25%, the duty liability would have worked out to Rs. 80,606/-. In other words, excess of Rs. 1,05,000/- was charged and paid by the respondent. 8. In these facts, the respondent filed refund claim for the sum of Rs.1,05,000/- which, as indicated above, was rejected on the ground that the assessment order being appealable, no appeal having been preferred against it. By the respondent, the refund claim was not maintainable. 9. In course of hearing learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that the duty was assessed as per EDI system under which the duty liability is determined by the computer on the basis of data generated as per the particulars mentione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der this Act. or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by the Central Government, the Board or such officer of customs or the successor in office of such officer, as the case may be". On a plain reading it is manifest that not only clerical or arithmetical mistake in any decision or order, but errors arising from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by the concerned authority. In the facts of the case, briefly noted above, we are satisfied that the mention of serial No. 281 instead of serial No. 337 was an accidental slip on the part of the respondent leading to mistake in the calculation of duty and the respondent should not be denied the benefit of the remedy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
