https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80034 A customs refund claim filed after the six-month period under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was barred by limitation, even though the excess duty collection was said to arise from an apparent assessment or arithmetical error. The statutory refund limitation could not be ignored on that basis, and the claim was rightly rejected. The Tribunal's rectification power under Section 129B(2) was confined to mistakes apparent from the record in its own order and could not be used to override Section 27 or create a refund remedy outside the limitation period. The analogy to rectification provisions in income-tax and civil procedure law was rejected as inapposite. en-us Fri, 09 Jun 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:16:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80034 A customs refund claim filed after the six-month period under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was barred by limitation, even though the excess duty collection was said to arise from an apparent assessment or arithmetical error. The statutory refund limitation could not be ignored on that basis, and the claim was rightly rejected. The Tribunal's rectification power under Section 129B(2) was confined to mistakes apparent from the record in its own order and could not be used to override Section 27 or create a refund remedy outside the limitation period. The analogy to rectification provisions in income-tax and civil procedure law was rejected as inapposite. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 09 Jun 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80034