TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (6) TMI 201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amely PIV Drivers and Couplings for the manufacture of machine tools. On the presentation of the Bill of Entry it was processed and the assessable value was determined as Rs. 1,71,925/- and accordingly basic custom duty, auxiliary customs duty etc. totalling Rs. 1,08,629.55 was collected. It appears that during the internal audit it was found that excess recovery of Rs. 11,320/-was effected from the appellants. Accordingly, the Assistant Collector Group H, New Customs House, Bombay vide his letter dated 15-6-1982 (said to have been received by the appellants on 16-6-1982) advised the appellants to file refund claim to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Refund Section. On receipt of the said advice, the appellants lodged their refund claim ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any such mistake which has been brought to its notice by the assessee, and where the authority concerned is the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals), by the Income-tax Officer also" and also cited the case reported in 33 ITR 290. Shri Mehta also submitted that this Tribunal has also power of rectification of any mistake apparent from the record under sub-section (2) of Section 129B of the Customs Act and since this Section appears after Section 27 of the Act the latest Section i.e. to say Section 129B(2) will prevail and cited the case of Northern India Caterers (Private) Ltd. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1581. Elaborating further, he also cited the following cases to emphasise that it is well settled rule of in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'ble Supreme Court in the case of Miles (India) Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs, 1987 (30) E.L.T. 641 and Collector of Central Excise v. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills, 1988 (37) E.L.T. 478, we are not called upon to decide the issue afresh and relying upon the said decisions we hold that the refund claim lodged by the appellants was clearly time barred. 6. However, since the learned counsel for the appellants has raised a question that it is a case of arithmetical mistake apparent from the record, the same should be rectified by this Tribunal under sub-section (2) of Section 129B of the Customs Act, we would like to consider and decide the issue also to settle the law so far as this Tribunal is concerned. The said sub-section (2) o....