2009 (8) TMI 1020

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... They had not challenged the Bill of Entry in respect of excess payment of duty before the Commissioner (Appeals). It is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. C.C. (Preventive), reported in 2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.). He has also submitted that the assessing authority cannot re-open the assessment order. 3. Learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that due to clerical mistake weight of scrap in weighment slip No. 18426 was wrongly mentioned as 26.920 M.T. instead of 16.920 M.T. Thus, the respondents paid excess customs duty on 10 M.T. He also submits that re-assessment was done in accordance with the provisi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....als Pvt. Ltd. Finding of the Hon'ble Court is reproduced below :- "The competent authority under Section 27 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions laid therein, was fully competent to exercise its discretion and in view of provisions of Section 149 of the Act permit the amendment of Bill of Entry, on the basis of documentary evidence (examination report Ex. A/1), which was in existence at the time the goods were cleared, and order refund of excess duty paid and collected. It is apparent from the record that in the present case the proper officer/assessing officer who assessed the duty and was competent under Section 149 to permit the amendment in the Bill of Entry was the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, who is also the comp....