2009 (7) TMI 403

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 7202.4900 which was assessed to duty @ 20%+16%+2%+4% and Customs duty of Rs. 6,97,597/- was paid on 12-1-07 by the respondent. 3. The respondent/importer states that their CHA has made mistake in filing document inasmuch as CHA declared the duty payable @ 20%, whereas it was required to be paid @ 7.5%. The authorities accepted such declarations, and cleared consignment on the request of importer. However, the importer and the CHA immediately noticed their mistake by which they had wrongly paid the duty @ 20% whereas it was required to be paid @ 7.5% and made a request for amendment of document and furnished required information/evidence in support of their contention. The Addl. Commissioner allowed amendment of the Bill of Entry on 12-1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Customs Act, 1962. Before going into the details of the case, I have read the relevant provisions. Section 154 reads as under:- "154. Correction of clerical errors etc. - Clerical or arithmetical mistake in any decision or order passed by the Central Government the Board or any officer of customs under this Act, or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by the Central Government, the Board of such officer of customs or the successor in office of such officer, as the case may be." Section 27:- "27. Claim for Refund of duty - (1) Any person claiming refund of any duty paid by him in pursuance of an order of assessment made by an officer of customs lower in rank than an Assis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... any of the situations which may attract the provisions of Section 154 but the respondent voluntarily paid the duty at higher rate. He also submits that the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act is applicable in this case and the adjudicating authority has rightly rejected the claim petition on the account that the application for refund claim is filed beyond the limitation period of six months as prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following decisions :- (1) Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. - 1996 (84) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.). (2) Porcelain Electrical Mfg. Co. - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 583 (S.C.). (3) Asst. Engr. (Civil), PCC Pole Factory, Sub-div. CSEB v. CCE, Raipur -....