GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (9) TMI 357 - CESTAT KOLKATA

2016 (9) TMI 357 - CESTAT KOLKATA - TMI - Refund of excess CVD paid - arithmetical error - requirement of reassessed bill of entry - certificate from chartered accountant regarding unjust enrichment - Held that: - non filing or late filing of appeal against the original assessment on the bill of entry is not relevant and appellant can challenge the assessment by way of a refund application - an opportunity of personal hearing should be extended to the appellant by AC Refunds to explain their cas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hri K. C. Jena, ADC (AR) for the Revenue ORDER Per Shri H. K. Thakur This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. 258/CUS(Apprg.)/KOL(P)/2013 dt 19/1/11 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Strand Road, Kolkata as first appellate authority. 2. Sh. Sukendu Bhattacharya (Advocate) & Sh. R. N. Bandopadhyay (Consultant) appeared on behalf of the appellant. Sh. S. Bhattacharyya argued that due to calculation error in the bill of entry with respect to Retail sale price (RSP/MRP/ excess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/29-8-2011 asked the appellant to furnish a copy of reassed bill of entry and were also asked to produce Chartered Accountant s certificate regarding unjust enrichment. That is was also specified in this letter dt 26/29-8-11 that if these documents are not furnished within 15 days then claim will be decided on the basis of available documents. That no order rejecting their refund claim has been passed by AC, Refunds so for. That appellant vide another letter dt 12/9/11 furnished a copy of unjust .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the following case laws filing an appeal against the assessed bill of entry is not necessary & appellant can challenge the assessment by a refund application :- (i) CC (I & G) New Delhi Vs Prima Telecom Ltd. [2011 (266) ELT 386 (Tri.-Del)] (ii) E. I. Dupond India Ltd Vs CC (Import) Mumbai [2015 (330) ELT 405 (Tri.-Mumbai)]. (iii) Akzo Nobel Coating India Pvt Ltd. CC (Sea), Chennai [2014 (312) ELT 91 (Tri.-Chennai)]. (iv) Secure Meters Ltd Vs CC, New Delhi [2016 (333) ELT 303 (Tri.-Del)] .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat appeal was filed after the statutory time period and was correctly dismissed as time barred by the first appellate authority. 4. Heard both sides & perused the case records. It is observed from Para 3 of the OIA dt 25/11/2013 passed by the first appellant authority that one of the point for deliberation raised by the appellant was that their case was only for rectification of an arithmetical misstate, which was within the powers of DC, NSCBI Airport, for which there is no time limit. It .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eal filed against the adjudication order the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the fact of showing higher value in the invoices issued by the supplier as compared to the contracted rate in the purchase order is not being disputed by the department. He also noticed that the supplier of the goods has submitted a written apology vide their letter dated 10-1-2005. They had also sent revised invoices. The payment to the overseas supplier is as per purchase order and in terms of the revised invoice .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

been paid due to incorrect invoices raised by the overseas supplier who has also submitted apology in this regard. The Appellant also filed the Bills of Entry on the basis of the value mentioned in the invoices without comparing the same with the contracted price. Therefore the excess duty was paid on account of the accidental slip or omission and is covered under section 154 of the Customs Act 1962. The observation made by the Adjudicating Authority in this regard that the case is not covered .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ween importer and the department challenging the assessment order. This being a case of wrong mentioning of the price in the invoice, other than the one agreed upon purchase order, is a clear case of clerical error covered by the provision of Section 154 of the Customs Act. No infirmity can be found in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). We, accordingly, reject the appeal filed by the Revenue. 4.2. Similarly in the case of Akzo Nobel Coating India Pvt Ltd Vs CC (Sea) Chennai (Supra), while .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e hold that if appellant is able to prove by producing proper documents that there was a mistake at the time of initial assessment and other conditions of Section 27 are satisfied, the appellant will be eligible for refund. The matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority for deciding the refund claim on merit considering the directions as above. 4.3. In the case of Secure Meters Ltd Vs CC New Delhi (Supra) also following view was taken by CESTAT Delhi in Para 6 :- 6. There is no dispute abo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s very issue had been dealt with by the Tribunal in the cases of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. CC (Port), Kolkata (supra) and Celcius Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi (supra), wherein the Tribunal has held that mention of wrong currency in the bill of entry as the application of wrong exchange rate is a clerical mistake and when on account of such clerical error a higher amount of duty has been paid the re-assessment is not required before filing of refund claim, as the clerical mist .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rical error. We, therefore, hold that before filing of the refund, it was not required for the appellant to challenge the assessment order and, as such, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. CC (Preventive) (supra) is not applicable to the facts of this case, and therefore, the impugned order upholding the rejection of the refund claim on this ground is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. 4.4. In all the cases at Para 4.1, 4.2 & 4.3 above Apex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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