TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal allows appeal for correction of clerical error in assessment order under Customs Act Section 154.</h1> <h3>CELCIUS REFRIGERATION PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI</h3> CELCIUS REFRIGERATION PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI - 2007 (213) E.L.T. 364 (Tri. - Del.) Issues: Appeal against rejection of claim due to alleged failure to challenge assessment order, correction of clerical error in assessment order, applicability of Section 154 of Customs Act, unjust enrichment principle in refund claims.Summary:The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of their claim, arguing that they were not challenging the assessment order but seeking correction of a clerical error. They contended that the actual freight was paid in Danish Kroner, not US $, and cited Section 154 of the Customs Act for correction of such errors. The appellant referenced the decision in the case of Goa Shipyard Ltd. v. CC and Keshari Steels v. Collector to support their argument.The Revenue opposed the claim, stating that since the appellant did not challenge the assessment order, the claim was not maintainable. They also invoked the principle of unjust enrichment, citing the decision in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. CCE.The Tribunal noted that the appellant's sole contention was the correction of a clerical error regarding the currency of payment. Referring to the decision in Keshari Steels, the Tribunal held that correction of clerical errors falls under Section 154 of the Customs Act, entitling importers to refunds once corrected. As the appellant was not challenging the assessment order on merits, the Tribunal found merit in their contention and deemed the impugned order unsustainable.Regarding the refund claim, the Tribunal reiterated the principle of unjust enrichment as per the decision in Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the claim on its merits, with the onus on the appellant to demonstrate that the burden of duty had not been passed on to their customers. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand.
TaxTMI 