9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1062X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f there is no allegation regarding misdeclaration of the value and no SCN is issued so far, considering the fact that the remedy of amendment under Section 154 was sought during the pendency of provisional assessment, the amendment as sought by the appellant shall be considered based on the outcome of the DRI investigation regarding unit price of the impugned imported goods and the provisional assessment should be finalised, accordingly, within a period of 3(three) months after the receipt of this final order, and appropriate order be passed in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - MR. P.A. AUGUSTIAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. PULLELA NAGESWARA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Mr. Syed Peeran, Advocate for Appellant Mr. Maneesh Akhoury, Authorized Representative for Respondent ORDER Issue in the present appeal is regarding rectification of mistake in value declared at the time of filing of bill of entry. M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd., appellants are providing basic Telephone, GSM and Broadband service and is a network service provider in the country. 2. The brief facts are the appellant had imported Telecom equipment from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , New Delhi Vs. Lava International Limited 2023 (93) TMI 25 CESTAT New Delhi. 5. Learned Advocate further submits that in the matter of M/s. Volvo India Pvt., Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (Supra), the Tribunal held that:- 4.1 Section 154 of the Act reads as follows : SECTION 154. Correction of clerical errors, etc. Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any decision or order passed by the Central Government, the Board or any officer of customs under 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. In the CC, New Delhi v. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal had held that the errors in a decision of the authorities occasioned by the mistake of an assessee could be corrected under Section 154 of the Act. I find that the Section provides for correcting errors of the nature involved in the instant case 'at any time'. No provision in the Act prohibits rectification of the errors in the provisional assessment under Section 154 and allowing the importer consequential relief. Grant o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m refund of duty suffered on inputs in the nature of drawback. The Limitation Act limits the period for filing a suit for recovery of money to three years. As per Article 137 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963 any application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere is three years from the time when the right to apply accrues. We are unable to refrain ourselves from being not persuaded by these provisions in the Limitation Act to hold that a period of three years would be a reasonable time for filing an application under Section 149. 9. Learned AR also produced Final Order of this Tribunal in the matter of M/s. IBM India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) in the Final Order No. 20920 of 2023 dated 08.09.2023, wherein this Tribunal held that; 12. In the present case, first of all, no documents existed at the time of assessment and the documents produced for amendment were not available at the time of assessment, these surfaced at much later date. The goods were not examined and the invoice produced by the appellant at the time of import had no factual errors and therefore to change the value of the imported goods based on an amended purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e framework of laws as laid down under Section 28/27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, Section 149 amendments cannot be read in isolation making these sections with regard to classification or valuation redundant. Reassessment of any assessment cannot be equated with an amendment under Section 149. The legislature, in the interest of justice, has not laid down any time limit under Section 149, does not take away the fact that any changes in valuation should not be in tandem with the laws laid down for refund or demand or else there will be no end for amendments which will result in utter chaos and de-stabilize the entire gamut of the Customs Act, 1962 . 12. However, the issue in the present appeal is regarding amendment of the value mis-declared due to omission on the part of supplier/appellant at the time of import. The case laws relied by both learned AR as well as Learned Counsel for the appellant pertains to the amendments sought on finalisation of the assessment, whereas in appellant s case, goods were provisionally released and investigation was going on regarding the very same issue of valuation. Further as per the impugned order, the Adjudication Authority also took note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
