TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 496
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvice Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai (for brevity "the Tribunal") in Final Order No.701/2009, dated 03.06.2009. 2.The above appeal was admitted on 22.12.2009, on the following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether the error committed by the importer in the Bill of Entry No.303606 dated 25.09.2006 can be corrected / rectified using the provision of the Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962? and (ii) Even presuming that the error committed by the importer could be rectified under Section 154 ibid, is it lawful to rectify the mistake by the Refund Authority itself for the purpose of refund of excess duty without considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wrongly included in the bill of entry and subsequently, they were cleared under another bill of entry, on payment of duty. It appears that considering the genuineness of the claim made by the assessee, the Refunds officer advised them to get the order of assessment of the bill of entry dated 25.09.2006 reviewed by the concerned apprising group or modified by way of an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Act, and file a refund claim, if the review/modification is in favour of the assessee. Pursuant there to, the assessee filed an application before the Assessing Officer, viz., the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Group 2, dated 14.12.2006. 6.We may note that assuming the assessee had filed an appeal before the Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment made in a bill of entry without filing an appeal against the said order; whether an error committed by the assessee would be covered under the scope of Section 154 of the Act; whether the appeal would be hit on the point of limitation. 9.The fact which was not disputed by the Revenue was that the assessee paid duty twice in respect of the same invoice. On the second time, the same invoice, which is subject matter of bill of entry, was assessed to tax and cleared by the assessee. However, neither the Assessing Officer, nor the first appellate authority made an endeavour to consider the undisputed factual position. Both the Assessing Officer and the first appellate authority were only guided by the legal principles without even loo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of clerical error under Section 154 of the Act, when the importer had not filed refund claim under Section 27 of the Act. 12.The facts of the case in Cannon India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was taken into consideration whether excess payment was occurred due to clerical error committed by the importer and not by the authority, yet the Tribunal held that the same can be corrected. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the interpretation given by the first appellate authority to Section 154 of the Act was incorrect. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and issued consequential direction to refund the excess duty paid on correction of the error in the assessment subject to scrutiny from the angle of unjust enrichment. 13.While we agree with the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appealable time available to the assessee. 15.At the first instance, a reading of Section 154 of the Act gives us an impression that clerical or arithmetical error which has occurred in orders passed by the Government Board or any officers of that Department, or errors arising from such order due to accidental slip or omission alone can be corrected. However, what is to be borne in mind is the procedure prescribed for amendment of bills of entry or for amendment of export documents which are documents originating from the exporter or importer. However, so far as the orders to be passed under the provisions of the Act is concerned, the power to correct the same can vest only with the authorities. Therefore, Section 154 of the Act specific....