TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 366
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oms duty in excess relying upon the board Circular dated 10.11.2008 wherein, board had clarified that till 31.12.2008, export duty discharged FOB will be the value as cum tax FOB. The said application for refund was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority as well as the First Appellate Authority on the ground that the assessment had become final, there being no challenge to such assessment the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Priya Blue and Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd., will apply. 5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant herein after bringing the facts of the case, to be knowledge of Bench, submits that identical issue in the case of Sameera Trading Company [2011 (264) ELT 578] was decided by the Tribunal in the favour of the appellants therein and submits that the said decision has been affirmed by the Apex Court in the another case of Commissioner Vs. Muneer Enterprises [2015 (319) ELT A226 (S.C)]. He also relies upon the following case laws to submit that similar issue already been decided in favour of the appellants. Sesa Goa Ltd., Vs. CCE & ST Bhubaneswar-I [2015 (12) IMI 60 - CESTAT - Kolkata] Commissioner of Customs, Guntur Vs. ILC Industri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim on the ground that the respondents had not challenged the assessment on the shipping bill. In taking such a decision, he followed the Apex Court judgment in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock India Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.)] and decision of the Tribunal in the case of Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkatta [2003 (162) E.L.T. 1148 (Tri. - Del)]. He also observed that re-assessment of the shipping bill under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) ordered on the shipping bill was for the limited purpose of revising liability following the ascertainment of exact Fe content and moisture content in the Ore. He also observed that Circular cited by the respondents did not apply to the assessments already finalized. 5. We find that the impugned order relied on the following case laws to allow the appeal filed before him : (i) IP Rings Ltd v. CE (AIR), Chennai - [2006 (202) E.L.T. 61 (Tri. Chennai) (ii) Senka Carbon Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Chennai [2007 (216) E.L.T. 397 (Tri. - Chennai)] (iii) Birla Jute Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent, 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 or such officer of customs or the successor in office of such officer, as the case may be." 7. We find that it was the onus of the assessing officer to correctly quantify the duty liability on the export consignment. He had committed an error in computing the export duty considering the FOB value as transaction value. It was within his competence to correct the error invoking Section 154 of the Act as held by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7.1 In Senka Carbon Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C., Chennai [2007 (216) E.L.T. 397 (Tri. Chennai)] the Tribunal held as follows: "2........ Once the imported goods were correctly declared in the Bills of Entry, it was the duty of the proper officer of customs to assess the duty due. Therefore, if the assessing officer committed a mistake, the same should be corrected and if any excess amount was collected pursuant to wrong assessment, that amount should be refunded. There was no need for the importer to challenge the assessment to obtain the refund of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case excess amount of duty was paid owing to a mistake in the calculation of the duty. The Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. Hero Honda Motors Ltd. [2008 (227) E.L.T. 482 (Tri. - Del.)] allowed the appeal filed by the assessee with the following findings : "11. Section 154 of the Customs Act reads as under :- "Section 154. Correction of clerical errors, etc. - Clerical or arithmetical mistakes 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 or such officer of customs or the successor in office of such officer, as the case may be". On a plain reading it is manifest that not only clerical or arithmetical mistake in any decision or order, but errors arising from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by the concerned authority. In the facts of the case, briefly noted above, we are satisfied that the mention of serial No. 281 instead of serial No. 337 was an accidental slip on the part of the respondent leading to mi....