9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he refund of the excess duty which was rejected, which traveled up to Hon'ble Supreme Court and Supreme Court vide order dt. 13.3.2001 held as under:- "Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the real issue here is that, apparently as a result of a clerical error, countervailing duty was charged at the rate of fifty per cent instead of five per cent. He submits that the appellants will make an application for rectification of the error under Section 154 of the Customs Act and that the application may be considered by the authorities in law. This is recorded. The civil appeal is, accordingly disposed of". Against such a direction by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, applicant filed an application for rectification of mistake under the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is also bound by the provisions of Section 27 of the Act. The question of unjust enrichment and the provisions of Section 27 over ride all other sections in the case of refund of the duty which has been collected by the Revenue. It is also his submission that the appellant has to first satisfy the question of unjust enrichment, to get refund. 5. In rejoinder, the Ld. Counsel submits that the issue of unjust enrichment has not been considered by the lower authorities. 6. Considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant held as under:- "However I find that the facts of the case on which reliance is placed upon by the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner has not considered the law as has been settled by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Keshari Steels. Their Lordships in the case of Keshari Steels (Supra) held as under:- "In our view, in the present case, there was no question at all of applying the provisions of Section 27 of the Act. The Assistant Collector of Customs pointed out that there was a mistake in recovering Rs. 25,136.10 from the Petitioners. For that purpose, the Petitioner made an application for refund. Section 154 specifically provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistake in any decision or order passed by an officer of Customs under the Act. Once that is corrected, the Petitioners are entitled to have refund of the said a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Customs Act, 1962 itself. On the other hand, we find that the learned Consultant for the appellants has cited two decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of TELCO (supra) and Keshari Steels (supra) of which the latter decision has also been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Both these decisions permit refunds in similar cases of correction of errors under Section 154 independent of the provisions of Section 27(1). This line of decision has also been followed by the Tribunal in ABB Ltd. (supra). As such, we hold that refunds as a consequence of correction of clerical error under the independent provisions of Section 154 is admissible without filing a refund claim under Section 27(1). We also note that Section 154 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
