9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28 128 of Customs Act, 1962 as submitted by Learned AR, but include other provisions like Section 149 for amendment of document or section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 for correction of clerical error, etc. If review of the assessment is limited to Section 128 of the Act, other provisions like section 149 meant for amendment of document, section 154 for correction of clerical error and provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 to recover duty short paid by the importer will become redundant. Thus even if the bill of entry is self-assessed, importer can seek amendment of bill of entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 and respondent has to consider such request in accordance with law. There is no request made before the adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ni Rajesh Rohra , Advocate for the Appellant Shri. K. A. Jathin , Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per : P. A. Augustian The issue in the present appeals is whether the Appellant can seek refund of excess amount by filing a refund application or by seeking amendment in the bill of entry regarding the exemption Notification under the provisions of Section 149 or 154 of Customs Act, 1962. 2. The brief facts are the Appellant had imported polished Marble Slabs and filed bill of entry on 29.05.2012. Since the import was from Sri Lanka, bill of entry was filed by availing the benefit of exemption Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012, as per the Notification exemption is given to excisable goods such as Marbles, slabs and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant to prefer appeal against the assessment of bill of entry. Aggrieved by said order, an appeal was filed before the appellate authority and appellate authority rejected the second appeal also. Aggrieved by said order, Appeal No. C/23216/2014 was filed. 4. When the matter came up for hearing, Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that both the appeals are maintainable and appellant is eligible to claim refund as claimed by the appellant. Regarding issue on merit, Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as evident from the exemption Notification, at the time of import, appellant had claimed benefit of Notification No. 18/2018 as against 12/2012 both dated 17.03.2012, when the omission was brought to the notice of the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of excess amount is not permitted. Learned AR also submits that the case-laws relied by the appellant are distinguishable considering the facts of the present case. In the matter of Liebherr India Pvt., Ltd. (supra), it is held that rectification of mistake as directed by the Tribunal will amount to reassessment under Section 17 of Customs Act, 1962. 6. Heard both sides perused the records. 7. As regards the contentions adduced by the Learned AR placing reliance on the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of ITC Ltd.(supra) Vs. CC, Kolkata reported in 2019 (368) E.L.T. 216 (S.C) wherein it is held that:- 47. When we consider the overall effect of the provisions prior to amendment and post-amendment under Finance Act, 2011, we ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r sought amendment of bill of entry under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, rejection of the request on the ground that there is no provision in the system to effect amendment and also directing the appellant to prefer appeal against the initial assessment of the bill of entry is illegal and unsustainable. 9. Thus, in appeal no. C/23215/2014, at the time of import, appellant had claimed benefit of Notification No. 18/2018 as against Notification No. 12/2012 both dated 17.03.2012. When the omission was brought to the notice of the appellant, appellant had made a request for refund of excess amount of Rs.1,86,239/-, which was paid in excess as CVD. However, there is no request made before the adjudication authority initially to rectify th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of the Appellant or speaking order from the proper officer, hands are tied and no ground for interference in terms of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. However Appellate authority failed to appreciate that the impugned order was issued by proper officer, who is empowered to allow such corrections as per the provision of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. No other objections were raised by the respondent to amend the bill of entry to avail the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012 instead of Notification No. 18/2012 both dated 17.03.2012. 11. Considering the above, Appeal no. C/23215/2014 is dismissed. Appeal No. C/23215/2014 is partially allowed by permitting amendment of bill of entry to claim benefit of Notification No. 12/2012 da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
