TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of reassessment as there were only clerical and arithmetical errors in the shipping bill namely (a) taking the wet MT iron ore instead of the dry MT and (b) taking the transaction value for calculating export duty instead of taking this as the cum duty value. Both these defects can be easily corrected under Section 154 Customs Act, 1964 - there is no infirmity in the First Appellate Authority sanctioning the refund while correcting to clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the Shipping Bills. Appeal rejected - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. C/1532 & 1533/2010 - FINAL ORDER No. A/31416-31417/2018 - Dated:- 13-11-2018 - Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And Mr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Guna Ranjan, Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order had reached the finality and it has not been challenged in the appeal proceedings. He, therefore, reasoned that as per the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur Vs. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd., [2000 (120) ELT 285 (S.C)] the refund was liable to be rejected as the assessment has not been challenged or reopened. Aggrieved by the order rejecting the refund claims, the respondent herein preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority who allowed their appeals. Another point of contention in the refund claims is that it was the policy of the Government to treat FOB price as cum duty price as per CBEC Circular No. 18/2008 dated 10.11.2008. This circular, inter alia, reads as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar to the exporter. 4. It is also the contention of the Revenue that the shipping bills had been finally assessed and therefore the ratio of the judgments of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd., Vs. CC (Prev.) [2004 (172) ELT 145 (S.C.)] and Flock India Pvt. Ltd., [2000 (120) ELT 285 (S.C.)] squarely apply as the assessments were not challenged nor reopened and the refund could not have been sanctioned. 5. Learned Departmental Representative reiterated the above submissions and the findings in the Order-in-Original and argued that the First Appellate Authority has clearly erred in giving the benefit of CBEC Circular No. 18/2008-Cus as well as in allowing the refund without reassessment of the shipping b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008 invoking the provisions of Section 154 of Customs Act, 1964 and allowed refund and the Revenue s appeal against this order of the First Appellate Authority was dismissed by the Tribunal. The case in hand is identical to the case of the Sameera Trading Co. (supra) and we find no reason to take a different view in this case. We, therefore, find that as was the established practice during the relevant period as confirmed by the CBEC Circular No. 18/2008-Cus the respondent was entitled to the benefit of cum duty value during the relevant period. On the question of reassessment being necessary for claiming the refund we find that in this case there is no requirement of reassessment as there were only clerical and arithmetical errors in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
