TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (8) TMI 277
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r was applied instead of applying Rs. 24.90 which was the rate for Singapore dollar. He pleads that refund arising out of correction of arithmetical and clerical errors under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 is admissible independent of Section 27 of the said Act and hence the limitation period prescribed under Section 27 has no application. He cites the following decisions in support of his argument :- 1. TELCO v. UOI - 1994 (69) E.L.T. 460 (Bom.)=1994 (54) ECR 57 (Bombay) 2. Keshari Steels v. C.C., Bombay - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 320 (Bom.) 3. ABB Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai - 2005 (67) RLT 378 (CESTAT-Del.) He also states that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Sl. No. 2 above has be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....covery on elaborate arguments on question of law and fact and cites the decision reported in AIR 1966 S.C. 1047 in this context. In the instant case, recording the exchange rate for the US Dollar instead of the correct exchange rate for the Singapore Dollar is clearly a clerical error leading to errors in calculating the assessable value as well as the quantum of duty. Such errors are squarely covered under the provisions of Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 which reads as under :- "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 Cent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of law and facts are involved in the matter, permitted Goa Shipyard Limited to pursue the appeal in CEGAT." The observations, however, give no clue as to what are the mixed questions of law and facts in this case. 6. The appellants have raised the question of admissibility of refund arising out of correction of clerical error under Section 154 in this appeal. This question has not been considered in the impugned orders as the claim has been rejected by the lower authorities applying the time limit of six months under Section 27. In the interest of justice, we feel it is appropriate to deal with this legal question at the stage of 2nd appeal even though it has not been considered at the stage of original decision and the first appeal.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the appellants' claim cannot be considered because they have not filed any appeal against the assessment made on the Bill of Entry. 8. We next deal with the first objection raised by the learned SDR as to whether a refund claim can be considered as a result of correction of clerical error under Section 154 independent of Section 27(1) and more particularly without taking into account the time limits prescribed therein. The learned SDR has cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mafatlal Industires (supra) in this regard. He has in particular drawn our attention to paragraph 99 of the said decision. We find that Mafatalal (supra) has not dealt with a cases of refund arising out of correction made under Section 15....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of Section 27(2). 9. As regards provisions of Section 27(2) dealing with unjust enrichment is concerned, the same has been given over-riding effect by sub-section (3) of Section 27 which inter alia stipulates that not withstanding any other provision of the Customs Act, 1962 or any other law or decision, no refund shall be made except as provided in Section 27(2). We note that in TELCO (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has taken the view that refund on account of correction of clerical mistakes will also be subject to unjust enrichment provisions under Section 27(2). We also note that in paragraphs 99 (iii) and (x) in Mafatlal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also ruled that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is a just an....