TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 907
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion under the provisions of Section 149 or 154 of Customs Act, 1962. 2. The brief facts are the Appellant had imported polished Marble Slabs and filed bill of entry on 29.05.2012. Since the import was from Sri Lanka, bill of entry was filed by availing the benefit of exemption Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012, as per the Notification exemption is given to excisable goods such as Marbles, slabs and tiles falling under Customs Tariff Item entry 6802 21 90 in excess of Rs. 30 per meter. The Appellant is entitled to avail benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 and liable to pay duty of only Rs.76,934/-. However, due to mistake on the part of Appellant, at the time of filing the bill of entry, the said Notification w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmits that both the appeals are maintainable and appellant is eligible to claim refund as claimed by the appellant. Regarding issue on merit, Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as evident from the exemption Notification, at the time of import, appellant had claimed benefit of Notification No. 18/2018 as against 12/2012 both dated 17.03.2012, when the omission was brought to the notice of the appellant, appellant had made a request for refund of Rs.1,86,239/- which was paid in excess as CVD. However, when the said request was rejected, appellant filed an appeal challenging the impugned order. Learned Counsel further submits that as per the request made by the appellant vide letter dated 27.11.2012, adjudication authority ought t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Section 17 of Customs Act, 1962. 6. Heard both sides perused the records. 7. As regards the contentions adduced by the Learned AR placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ITC Ltd.(supra) Vs. CC, Kolkata reported in 2019 (368) E.L.T. 216 (S.C) wherein it is held that:- "47. When we consider the overall effect of the provisions prior to amendment and post-amendment under Finance Act, 2011, we are of the opinion that the claim for refund cannot be entertained unless the order of assessment or self-assessment is modified in accordance 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 f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 9. Thus, in appeal no. C/23215/2014, at the time of import, appellant had claimed benefit of Notification No. 18/2018 as against Notification No. 12/2012 both dated 17.03.2012. When the omission was brought to the notice of the appellant, appellant had made a request for refund of excess amount of Rs.1,86,239/-, which was paid in excess as CVD. However, there is no request made before the adjudication authority initially to rectify the mistake and when the said request was rejected, appellant filed the appeal challenging the order on the ground that the adjudication authority ought to have corrected the omission as a clerical error under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 and to reassess the duty by permitting amendment of bill of entr....