Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2005 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (8) TMI 277 - CESTAT, MUMBAIRefund arising out of correction of arithmetical and clerical errors u/s 154 - Assessment order - excess duty paid - limitation period prescribed u/s 27 - Unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- We first take up the second objection raised by the learned SDR that no refund claim can be made without first appealing against the assessment order. We are not convinced of this argument. Section 27(1) itself provides for claim against duty paid in pursuance of an order of assessment. Such a specific legal provision can not be ignored which confers a right on a claimant. It has not made filing refund claim conditional upon filing an appeal against the assessment order. The learned SDR has cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue [2004 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT], We note that this is a decision by a Bench of two Judges, which has not considered the decision of the three Judges Bench rendered in the case of Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. CC [2002 (4) TMI 79 - SUPREME COURT], in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted consideration of a refund claim though no appeal was filed against the assessment made on the Bill of Entry. We are bound to follow the ratio of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We, therefore, reject the contention of the learned SDR that the appellants' claim cannot be considered because they have not filed any appeal against the assessment made on the Bill of Entry. Whether a refund claim can be considered as a result of correction of clerical error u/s 154 independent of Section 27(1) and more particularly without taking into account the time limits prescribed therein - We find that the learned consultant for the appellants has cited decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Keshari Steels [1996 (9) TMI 154 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY] of which the latter decision has also been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court [1997 (12) TMI 643 - SC ORDER]. Both these decisions permit refunds in similar cases of correction of errors u/s 154 independent of the provisions of Section 27(1). As such, we hold that refunds as a consequence of correction of clerical error under the independent provision of Section 154 is admissible without filing a refund claim under Section 27(1). We also note that Section 154 is a latter provision of law under which a correction can be made at any time. We further note that Section 27(1) has not been given overriding effect over other sections of the Customs Act, 1962 as has been done in the case of Section 27(2). Unjust enrichment - We note that in paragraphs 99 (iii) and (x) in Mafatlal [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also ruled that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is a just and salutary doctrine and that all refund claims (except those arising as a result of a levy being declared unconstitutional) have to be dealt in accordance with Section 27(2) in view of provisions contained in Section 27(3). Accordingly, we hold that the appellants are entitled to refund arising out of correction of clerical mistake u/s 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 subject to the question of unjust enrichment being examined by the original authority. As such, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal by remand to the original authority in the above terms. The original authority shall consider the refund claim and allow the appellants reasonable opportunity of hearing to prove that they have not passed on the incidence of the extra duty to any other person.
|