TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 1005X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision in the case of M/s. Sameera Trading Company, [2010 (5) TMI 518 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] where it was ditected the assessing officer to reassess the Bill of Entry under Section 17(4) of the Act after allowing the assessee to amend the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Act - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue. - Customs Appeal No. C/603, 604-606, 637/2009 - Final Order Nos.1071 to 1975/2010 - Dated:- 15-7-2010 - <!--[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]--> M.V. Ravindran, Judicial Member and P. Karthikeyan, Technical Member M. Vivekanandan, SDR, for the Appellant G. Venkatesh, Adv. for respondent at S. No. 1., M.S. Nagaraja, Adv. for respondent at S. No. 2 and 3. for the Respondent JUDGEMENT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s before the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in all the matters, after considering the case records and the CBEC circular and relying upon the decision of his predecessor, first appellate authority in all these matters, came to a conclusion that the shipping bills which were assessed with remarks are provisional and not finally assessed and there is no need to file separate appeal against the order of assessment and it could be corrected under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. Coming to such conclusion, he set aside the orders-in-original and allowed the refund claims. Hence, the Revenue is before us. 3. The main contention of the Revenue in all these appeals is that the shipping bills were not provisionally as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one by the customs authorities on FOB value. We find strong force in the contention raised by the ld. Counsels that the issue is now squarely covered by our decision in the customs appeal No.C/575/09 of M/s. Sameera Trading Company. Our Final Order dt. 19/5/2010 has recorded the following findings in an identical issue:- 6. We find that the Original authority had assessed the impugned shipping bill contrary to the legal provisions. In the Circular No. 18/2008 dated. 10/11/2008 issued by CBEC, it was clarified that by taking the FOB price declared by the exporter as cum-duty price and working backwards from the FOB price to determine the value for assessment was a practice followed for the last more than three decades. This practice was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. 6.2 Section 154 of the Act reads as under: Correction of clerical errors, etc. - 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 Central Government, the Board or such officer of customs or the successor in office of such officer, as the case may be. 7. We find that it was the onus of the assessing officer to correctly quantify the duty liability on the export consignment. He had committed an error in computing the export duty considering the FOB value as transaction value. It was with in his competence to correct the error invok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omission and correct thereafter at any time. Thus, the above provisions give enough power to the authorities mentioned therein without any limitation for carrying out the necessary corrections. Therefore, to say that the appellant has failed to move an application under Section 154 may not be legally correct. I, therefore, consider it necessary to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication and to pass a fresh speaking order in the matter after taking into consideration the provision of Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1952, particularly when the provisions of this section have not been considered in the aforementioned decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In another case of rejection of claim for refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mistake in any decision or order, but errors arising from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by the concerned authority. In the facts of the case, briefly noted above, we are satisfied that the mention of serial No.281 instead of serial No.337 was an accidental slip on the part of the respondent leading to mistake in the calculation of duty and the respondent should not be denied the benefit of the remedy under Section 154. We are of the view that the decisions of Supreme Court relied upon on behalf of the Revenue cannot be applied in cases covered by Section 154 of the Act and where refund is the logical consequence of correction of some clerical or accidental error under Section 154, the person should not be d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
