9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07/2004-Cus. (B) dated 14-10-2004 & (iv) Order-in-Appeal No. 106/2004-Cus. (B) dated 14-10-2004 2. Shri C. Shiva Dass, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri K. Sambi Reddi, Authorized Representative (JDR) for the Revenue. 3. We have heard both sides. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants M/s. ISRO Satellite Centre, Airport Road, Bangalore imported several items. Even though, they were entitled for the exemption under Notification No. 51/96 dated 23-7-96 as amended by 93/96, due to certain problem in the software being used in the EDI system, they wrongly paid the duty at the rate of 5% on all exempted goods (Integrated Circuits) wrongly. They were rightly entitled for the benefit of the exemption. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime bar. This provision cannot be made applicable at a latter stage but only at the time of payment of duty. Therefore, he has rejected the refund claim on account of time bar. In other words, he has upheld the order of the lower authority rejecting the refund claim. 3.2 On a very careful consideration of the issue and also on the basis of the submissions of the learned Advocate, we find that the appellant had to pay duty at 5% not because they chose to pay the duty but because of the glitch in the EDI system. Therefore, there is absolutely no mistake on the part of the appellants. They also in their letter dated 17-7-2003 pointed out the mistake. Further, our attention was invited to Section 154 of the Customs Act: Section 154. Correctio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .L.T. 888 (T) = 2006 (72) RLT 479 (CESTAT-Mum.) the ratio of that case is applicable to the present appeals also. Further, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs, Chandigarh v. Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd. - 1995 (76) E.L.T. 408 (Tribunal) is also relevant. In this case also it has been held that Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 being independent of Section 27 ibid, refund claim in terms of Section 154 to be examined any time and correction ordered and consequential relief granted. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of the refund. There is no merit in the impugned order of the Commissioner (A), therefore, we allow these appeals with consequential relief. (Pronounced in open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
