Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

2015 (11) TMI 84 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Refund of excess duty paid to claim exemption under Notification No. 119/2008-Cus. - re-assessment / amendment of the bills of entry - Imported Ferro Molybdenum – Held That:- assessing officer has a duty to assess according to the law and refusal to amend the document would result in an irregular assessment - amendment has to be allowed when a request is based on documentary evidence, which was in existence at the time of clearance - In terms of provisions of Section 149 appellant is eligible fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pellants ) against the Order-in-Appeal C. Cus. No. 577/2010 dated 28.9.2010 passed by the learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai. 2. Few facts which are necessary for understanding the controversy are that the appellants imported Ferro Molybdenum and filed two Bills of Entry dated 31.10.2008 and 19.11.2008. The goods were cleared on payment of basic duty @ 10% advolorem. Subsequent to clearance of the goods the appellants found that they were eligible for concessional basic duty @ 5% .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mise that any assessment order should be modified or reviewed by way of appeal as held by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Priya Blue Industries - 2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC). 3. The appellant aggrieved by the said order of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Group 3 & 4) dated 11.12.2009 preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellate Commissioner rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation. Hence, the present a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

learned counsel relied on the following decisions: - (a) Hero Cycles Ltd. Vs. Union of India -2009 (240) ELT 490 (Bom.) (b) Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. Global Vectra Heicorp -2013 (297) ELT 250 (c) Bansal Alloys & Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar -2009 (240) ELT 483 (P&H) (d) Share Medical Care Vs. Union of India -2007 (209) ELT 321 (SC) 5. The learned AR appearing for the Revenue while supporting the orders passed by the lower authorities submits that Secti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case, the appellant is claiming amendment and consequent re-assessment of the bill of entrysince the notification No 119/2008 dated 31.10.2008 was in existence at the time of filing of bill of entry. 7. Section 149 and Section 154 of Customs Act, 1962 are reproduced below: - "SECTION 149: Amendment of documents Save as otherwise provided in sections 30 and 41, the proper officer may, in his discretion, authorize any document, after it has been presented in the custom house to be amended: P .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 Central Government, the Board or such officer of customs or the successor in office of such officer, as the case may be." 8. From the above, it can be seen that as far as Section 149 is concerned, amendment is to be allowed on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time when t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Cycles Ltd. Vs. Union of India (supra) relied upon by ld. Counsel is relevant and the relevant paragraphs 8 & 9 are reproduced below: "8. In the instant case, the Petitioners admittedly, based on the said notification were being granted benefit of the notification previous to the imports in issue and also subsequent to the imports in question. In other words, both the parties were aware of the said notifications. If the Petitioner on account of an inadvertent error chose not to apply fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version