TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 632X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, which is treated as the Order-in-Original is clearly a non-speaking order and the same cannot be sustained. The collection of Duty, therefore, is clearly without the authority of law. Consequently, the impugned order, which has sustained the non-speaking order of the Deputy Commissioner, cannot also be sustained. The appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Original Authority with a direction to pass a speaking order, finalizing the assessments. It is also directed that relief as per Notification No. 62/2007-Cus. dated 03.05.2007 be given taking into account the test reports. - Customs Appeal No. 00894 of 2012 - FINAL ORDER NO. 20030/2022 - Dated:- 14-2-2022 - MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Mukesh Lodha, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Smt. C.V. Savitha, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is filed against the appellate order No. 241/2011 dated 30.12.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. Brief facts that are relevant for our consideration are that the appellant is one of the exporters of Iron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow with repeated requests. The appellant also requested for rectification under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that there was an error since the law, as laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Gangadhar Narsingdas Aggarwal reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.), had not been considered. 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, however, vide letter dated 07.05.2010, without bothering to apply the correct position of law and the application of the exemption Notification No. 62/2007-Cus., chose to take a shortcut, to reject the application for rectification/correction, by holding that the shipping bills in question were assessed provisionally after obtaining the PD bonds / Test bonds and subsequently, after receipt of the test results for Fe content from CRCL, Cochin, the said bonds were cancelled. It is surprising that the authority has not considered the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court supra, which has laid down the guiding principles insofar as the assessment of shipping bills vis- -vis Fe content is concerned. 5. Seriously aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeal urging all legal grounds duly supported by various case-l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the appeals No. C/759/09 to 764/09 and C/767/09 the proper officer omitted to take note of the decision of the Hon ble apex court in the case of TISCO (supra). Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 deals with the situation where there is a clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any decision or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission at the time of assessing the Bill of Entry and same can be corrected by the proper officer. In these appeals, the proper officer failed to take the cognizance of the decision in the case of TISCO (supra) while assessing the Bills of Entry which can be termed as accidental slip or omission. As per the law dictionary omission means neglect or failure to perform what the law requires and in this case law requires to assess the Bill of Entry after taking note of the decision of TISCO which was omitted by the proper officer. If for such omissions or errors committed by the proper officer, the same is to be corrected while dealing with refund claims filed by appellant, the same will tantamount to be done under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. That is why the legislature incorporated the Section 154 of the Customs Act into the statute b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned in Section 152 CPC also. ... ... ... 17. In these appeals also, the proper officer had omitted to apply the decision of Hon ble apex court in the case of TISCO (supra) at the time of assessment of Bills of Entry and the same ought to have been corrected by re-assessing the Bill of Entry and arrive at a correct liability in the proceeding relating to refund. ... ... ... 20. From the above discussion, it is clear that in the Appeals No. C/759 to C/767/09 except C/765 and C/766 of 2009, the proper officer had committed the error by omission not to consider the decision of the Hon ble apex court in the case of TISCO (supra) which amounts to omission or accidental slip while assessing the Bills of Entry and the same is covered under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the assessments need not to be challenged in these appeals and are to be corrected under Sec.154 ibid while dealing with the refund claim under Section 27 ibid as held by the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Bansal Alloys and Metals Ltd. (supra). 9.1 Per contra, Learned Representative for the Revenue has seriously contended tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
