TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 1236
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....impugned goods and also paid the duty on the value of 1,75,608 EUR as quoted in the invoice dated 20.07.2011 (amounting to Rs. 30,09,958/-). Having noticed the above error during the reconciliation of the records, the appellant brought the same to the notice of its supplier, who thereafter issued a credit note dated 30.08.2011 for the excess amount of 289.75 EUR and that the above discrepancy in the unit price had resulted in an excess payment of Customs duty to the extent of Rs. 27,81,701/-. This amount of the excess Customs duty paid was claimed as refund vide refund application dated 22.09.2011 whereby, the appellant had also requested the Assistant Commissioner to issue an amended Bill of Entry along with request for sanctioning the refund. The appellants again filed a request for amendment of Bill of Entry vide its application dated 10.10.2011 but however, the Assistant Commissioner vide its Intimation dated 27.04.2012 declined to consider the appellant's request for re-assessment on the ground that "no amendment of Bill of Entry could be permitted once the imported goods have been cleared for home consumption or deposited in a warehouse or the goods have been exported, except....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....served in the said Order-in-Original that the Order-in-Appeal No.247 ibid passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Bangalore, has been accepted in Review by Committee of Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore on 10.09.2018. 4. Against the said Order-in-Original, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, praying to set aside the Order-in-Original on the ground that the sanctioning authority had considered the matter afresh and sanctioned the refund without re-assessment of the duty payable as mandated under Section 17(4) ibid. The appellant also preferred a cross appeal and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No.21/2020 dated 04.02.2020 allowed the appeal of the Revenue thereby setting aside the Order-in-Original impugned therein. The Commissioner (Appeals) has reasoned that the issue was squarely covered by the Larger Bench decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ITC Ltd. Vs CCE, Kolkata IV, 2019 (368) ELT 216 (SC). The Commissioner (Appeals) has also inferred that it was not open to the authority which processes the refund to make a fresh assessment on merit and that any mistake com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e with law by taking recourse to the appropriate proceedings and it would not be within the ken of Section 27 to set aside the order of self-assessment and reassess the duty for making refund; and in case any person is aggrieved by any order which would include self-assessment, he has to get the order modified under Section 128 or under other relevant provisions of the Act." 8. Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, in the case of Dimension Data India Pvt. Ltd. Vs CC and ANR, 2021-TIOL-224-HC-MUM-CUS, had considered the said binding decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, also considered various other decisions and has ruled as under: "14. Short point for consideration is whether request of the petitioner for correction of inadvertent mistake or error in the self-assessed Bills of Entry and consequential passing of orders for re-assessment is legal and valid? Corollary to the above is the question as to whether even in a case of this nature, petitioner is required to be relegated to the remedy of appeal?" ...... 22.1 . From the question itself, it is clear that the issue before the Supreme Court was not invocation of the power of re-assessment under section 17(4) or amendment of documents ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d while dealing with a refund claim. Therefore, this decision on the face of it is clearly distinguishable and is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. 24. In the instant case, petitioner has not sought for any refund on the basis of the self-assessment. It has sought re-assessment upon amendment of the Bills of Entry by correcting the customs tariff head of the goods which would then facilitate the petitioner to seek a claim for refund. This distinction though subtle is crucial to distinguish the case of the petitioner from the one which was adjudicated by the Supreme Court and by this Court. 25. Grievance of the petitioner is not on the merit of the self-assessment as the petitioner is aggrieved by the failure on the part of the respondents to carry out amendment in the Bills of Entry by replacing the incorrect 19 of 22 www.taxguru.in 23.os.wpl.249.20.doc CTH by the correct one namely by replacing CTH '85176990' with '85176930' which was declared inadvertently by the petitioner at the time of fling the Bills of Entry. This request of the petitioner, in our opinion, falls squarely within the domain of section 149 read with section 154 of the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore not justified. 29. Accordingly, we direct respondent No.2 to consider the prayer of the petitioner for amendment of the Bills of Entry Nos. 2434172, 2436049, 2522910, 2805152 and 2968920 (annexed as Annexure B colly to the writ petition) by exercising power under section 149 read with section 154 of the Customs Act and thereafter pass an appropriate order under section 17(4) of the Customs Act after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9. In the present case there is no dispute that excess duty was paid mistakenly on account of certain error and the said mistake was rectifiable under Section 154. Further, the appellant was not at fault at all but it was directed to file refund application at the first instance. Had the Department considered the appellant's request for amendment of its Bill of Entry then, perhaps, the alleged delay, etc. would not have arisen at all. The appellant had correctly and in line with the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ITC Ltd. (Supra) requested for amendment and it was at the instance of the Department that a refund application was also filed. I find that the request for amendment/rectification sought for by the app....