9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sheva Mumbai who in turn has allowed the revenue appeal and set aside the order-in-original passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs in sanctioning the refund claim of Rs. 72,486/- under provisions of Sec. 27(1) of Customs Act, 1962. Appellant imported a consignment of Brass Scrap (Honey) weighing 20221.148 Kgs. at the rate of US$ 1240/MT and filed a Bill of Entry No. 909518 dated. 29-10-03. In the Bill of Entry filed by the appellant the total assessable value of Rs. 11,64,939/- declared by computing it with reference to the transaction value of US$ 1240/PMT. The duty of the consignment was assessed at Rs. 5,91,790/-. Later appellant filed a refund claim of Rs. 72,486/- on the ground that vide Notification No. 92/2003-Cus., dated. 29-10-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no dispute that the goods in question mainly Brass Scrap (Honey) are covered by Notification No. 36/2001-Cus., as amended by Notification No. 92/2003-Cus. whereby the Tariff value for assessment of Brass scrap is fixed at US$ 1099 PMT. The assessing officer by assessing the imported Brass scrap, the Customs duty, by computing the same from the invoice value, omitted to take notice of the Customs Notification No. 36/2001-Cus., as amended by Notification No. 92/2003-Cus. whereby Tariff value for assessment of goods in question was notified. 5. The ld. Counsel for the appellant Ms. Purnima Singh submits that there is no dispute that goods are not covered by said notification prescribing the Tariff value for assessment. The goods were asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms Act, 1962. 8. In such cases, where it is only a correction of an error arising out of omission on the part of the Customs Officer, the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Flock (India) or Priya Blue reported in 2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (SC) would not come in the way of the appellant s claim of refund specially when there is no contentious issue to be deliberated in detail and adjudicated upon, as it is nobody s case that Customs Notification No. 36/2001-Cus., as amended by Notification No. 92/2003-Cus. would not cover the assessment of the goods in question. 9. The appellant also relying upon the following decision in their favour : (i) Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. v. CC (Port), Kolkata - 2006 (202) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
