2010 (9) TMI 1032 - AT - Customs

Tribunal grants refund for excess payment due to clerical error without time limit

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the decision rejecting the refund claim for excess amount paid due to a clerical mistake in the assessment ... Refund claim - excess amount paid at the time of assessment of their Bill of Entry due to clerical mistake - time limitation - denial of refund on the ground that refund claim is filed beyond a period of six months from the date of payment of duty - Held that:- The provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, will not apply. Hence, the refund claim of the excess amount paid by the appellant is not hit by bar of limitation of six months. As it is a case of a clerical error and the same has been rectified under Section 154, the appellant is entitled for the refund claim for the excess amount paid by them at the time of assessment of the Bill of Entry - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues: Refund of excess amount paid due to clerical mistake, applicability of Section 27 of the Customs Act, time limit for filing refund claim.Analysis:1. Refund Claim Due to Clerical Mistake: The appellant filed an appeal seeking a refund of the excess amount paid at the time of assessment of their Bill of Entry due to a clerical mistake. They realized the error in considering the whole value of goods as per unit price and promptly procured a revised invoice to rectify the mistake. The re-assessment was conducted, and the actual duty payable was determined. The appellant then filed a refund claim within the prescribed time limit, contending that the refund arose from a clerical mistake covered under Section 154 of the Customs Act, which has no time bar limit.2. Applicability of Section 27 of the Customs Act: The Asst. Commissioner rejected the refund claim citing Section 27 of the Customs Act, which imposes a time limit of six months for filing refund claims. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing that the duty was paid without protest, no reassessment was ordered by an appellate authority, and the bill of entry was not provisionally assessed initially. The appellant argued that Section 154, covering clerical errors, should apply instead of Section 27. The appellant relied on various case laws to support their contention that refund arising from clerical mistakes under Section 154 is not subject to the time limit imposed by Section 27.3. Tribunal's Decision: After considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal found that the appellant's case involved a clerical mistake in the assessment of the Bill of Entry, rectified through re-assessment and a subsequent refund claim. The Tribunal referred to Section 154 of the Customs Act, which allows for the correction of clerical errors without any time limit. The Tribunal distinguished the case law cited by the respondent, emphasizing that the appellant's situation was different as they filed a refund claim under Section 154 following the re-assessment. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the provisions of Section 27 did not apply to the appellant's case. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to the refund claim for the excess amount paid due to the clerical error.4. Final Decision: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant and granting consequential relief. The decision highlighted that the refund claim arising from a clerical mistake rectified under Section 154 was not time-barred by the six-month limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The appellant's entitlement to the refund of the excess amount paid was affirmed based on the specific circumstances and legal provisions governing clerical errors in customs assessments.