Final assessment bars refund unless set aside first; amendment and clerical-correction provisions cannot replace appeal.

Refund of cess could not be granted against finalised shipping bill assessments because the assessments had been made on the appellant's own declarations, no protest was recorded, and no appeal was filed to disturb them. A refund authority cannot sit in appeal over a subsisting assessment, so the refund route was procedurally barred. Sections 149 and 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 were also unavailable: amendment under Section 149 is limited to the statutory framework and existing documentary evidence, while Section 154 is confined to clerical or arithmetical mistakes or accidental slips. Those provisions could not be used as a substitute for the prescribed appellate process, even if the levy was otherwise said to be unsustainable on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of cess could be granted without first challenging the final assessment of the shipping bills, and whether Sections 149 and 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be invoked to secure such refund.

Analysis: The Shipping Bills were finally assessed on the basis of the appellant's own declarations, no protest was recorded, and no appeal was filed to unsettle the assessments. The refund claims were therefore hit by the settled principle that a refund officer cannot sit in appeal over a subsisting assessment order. Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 permits amendment of documents only within the statutory framework and on the basis of documentary evidence in existence at the relevant time, while Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 is confined to clerical or arithmetical mistakes or accidental slips or omissions. The impugned assessments did not disclose any such clerical error, and the appellant's attempt to use amendment or correction provisions as a substitute for appeal was held impermissible. The levy itself was treated as not sustainable on merits, but that did not cure the procedural bar against refund.

Conclusion: The refund claims were not maintainable, and Sections 149 and 154 could not be invoked to bypass the final assessments.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the appellant had not first reversed the assessed duty through the prescribed appellate process, and the refund route was unavailable on the facts of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund claim against a final assessment cannot be entertained unless the assessment is first modified or set aside in accordance with law, and provisions for amendment or clerical correction cannot be used as a substitute for appeal.

---