TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (11) TMI 59
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the outset, it may be stated that the Respondents have not filed any return in the present petition. According to the petitioners, the goods were imported under Import Licences OGL/3/80 in April 1981. The said goods under OGL were allowed for actual user only. Copy of invoice (Ex. 2) is annexed to the affidavit of Shri Ramesh Girijya Kulal dated 7th September 1992. It is further averred by the petitioners in the said affidavit that at no stage these goods are sold to outsiders and the petitioner No. 1 has not passed the incidence of duty to consumer. It was further stated that the petitioners made use of the imported goods for the manufacture of end-products i.e. commercial vehicles. 3. According to the petitioners, they imported one case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Entry (Ex. 1) annexed to the affidavit of Shri Ramesh Girijya Kulal dated 7th September 1992. On calculations, Counsel urged that there was a bona fide mistake in calculations in the present case. In the presence of the Counsel for the Respondents calculations were made by him. After reading calculations it is obvious that the customs duty that is payable by the petitioners was Rs. 42,646.42. As against this, they have paid Rs. 1,84,646,42. Thus, excess payment made by the petitioners comes to Rs. 1,42,000. 6. Now, the question is if such an arithmetical mistake is crept-in in assessment of customs duty on Bill of Entry, whether the petitioners should be denied the refund claim solely on the ground of limitation as prescribed under Section....