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>Refund under Section 27 requires assessment modification under Section 128 or relevant provisions including Sections 149 and 154</h1> <h3>M/s. Sunil Steels Versus The Commissioner of Customs-Cochin</h3> M/s. Sunil Steels Versus The Commissioner of Customs-Cochin - TMI Issues:1. Whether the Appellant can seek a refund of excess amount by filing a refund application or by seeking an amendment in the bill of entry regarding the exemption Notification under the provisions of Section 149 or 154 of Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:1. The Appellant imported polished Marble Slabs and filed a bill of entry availing the benefit of exemption Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. However, a mistake was made in mentioning the Notification as 18/2012-CE, resulting in an excess duty payment of Rs. 1,86,239. The refund application was initially dismissed by the adjudication authority and the appellate authority, leading to the filing of Appeal No. C/23215/2014.2. The Appellant also sought an amendment of the Bill of Entry under Section 149 and 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, which was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. Subsequent appeals were also dismissed, leading to the filing of Appeal No. C/23216/2014.3. The Appellant argued that the refund claims are maintainable and relied on case laws to support their position. The Authorized Representative contended that the appeals are not maintainable based on a Supreme Court judgment and that the case laws cited by the Appellant are distinguishable.4. The Tribunal considered the arguments and the Supreme Court judgment, emphasizing that a refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 can only be made if the assessment is modified under Section 128 or other relevant provisions. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of provisions like Section 149 for amendment of documents and Section 154 for correction of clerical errors.5. The Tribunal concluded that Appeal No. C/23215/2014 was unsustainable as there was no request for amendment of the bill of entry under Section 154. However, Appeal No. C/23216/2014 was partially allowed, permitting the amendment of the bill of entry to claim the benefit of the correct Notification. The matter was remanded to the Adjudication authority for assessment in accordance with law.6. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in open court on 03.09.2024.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
