1998 (5) TMI 116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....995. Subsequently, they filed an application for refund on 7-3-1996 on the ground that due to mistake by the supplier, the invoice for the goods had been made out for air freight instead of sea freight. The goods had actually been shipped by sea. The Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, by his order dated 11-3-1996 rejected the claim as time barred beyond six months period prescribed for refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Asstt. Commissioner's order was challenged in appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order setting aside the Asstt. Commissioner's order on the ground that the refund claim has to be dealt with in terms of Section 154 of the Customs Act and not under Section 27 of the Customs Act, bec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Bill of Entry itself constitutes an appealable order as has been decided by the Tribunal and the correction of an arithmetical or clerical error therein has to be carried out under Section 154. The ld. Counsel also cited the case law in the case of Southern Sulphates and Chemicals (P) Ltd. - 1986 (24) E.L.T. 589 (Tribunal) and the majority decision in the case of Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation v. Collector of Customs - 1993 (63) E.L.T. 648 (Tribunal) for the proposition that clerical mistake in the Bill of Entry for computation of duty has to be corrected under Section 154 and also that Section 154 of the Customs Act is independent of Section 27 and relief under Section 154 can be granted at any time as no time limit has ben prescribe....