Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Refund for excess customs duty paid by filing an application for amendment of the bill of entry u/ss 149 or 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. It was held that a refund u/s 27 can only be granted if the assessment is modified u/s 128 or other relevant provisions. Sections 149 and 154 allow for amendment of documents or correction of clerical errors, respectively. If review is limited to Section 128, other provisions like Sections 149, 154, and 28 (for recovering short-paid duty) would become redundant. Even for self-assessed bills of entry, importers can seek amendment u/s 149. However, in this case, no request was made initially for rectification or amendment u/s 149 or 154. The adjudication authority rightly rejected the refund claim based on the Supreme Court's judgment in ITC Ltd. The appellate authority erred in not considering the proper officer's power to allow corrections u/s 149, as no other objections were raised regarding amending the bill of entry to avail the benefit of the correct notification.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
