TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, as a result of which excess duty was paid - the Revenue has wrongly rejected the application on the ground of delay whereas the delay has been properly explained and moreover no time limit is prescribed under Section 149 For seeking amendment in the Bill of Entry - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/21081/2017-SM - 22758/2017 - Dated:- 8-11-2017 - Shri SS Garg, Judicial Memb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty only) per Ltr. Accordingly, the Bill of Entry was assessed by wrongly taking ₹ 5760/- (Rupees Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty only) as the MRP per litre, resulting in an excess duty payment amounting to ₹ 3,71,903/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Nine Hundred and Three only). Subsequently on 24.08.2016, appellant filed a refun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as well as on facts. He further submitted that it is evident from the invoice itself that the declaration of per litre MRP and per container (3.6 Ltrs.) MRP was mistakenly declared as one and the same. Learned counsel has also shown the cop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eply to this, the learned counsel submitted that firstly they filed the refund application which was returned by the Revenue subsequently an application for amendment was filed before the proper officer and moreover for seeking amendment under Section 149 no time limit is prescribed under the Act. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a) I.P Rings Ltd. Vs. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record as well as the previous Bill of Entry wherein the identical product was cleared under actual price whereas in the present case, the price was wrongly quoted, as a result of which excess duty was paid. Further I find that the Revenue has wrongly rejected the application on the ground of delay whereas the delay has been properly explained and moreover no time limit is prescribed under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
