TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reckoned from the date of amendment and not from the date of actual payment of duty. The similar issue has been considered by this tribunal in the case of KESHARI STEELS VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY [ 1996 (9) TMI 154 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY] wherein, it was held that if the refund is arising out of correction of clerical or arithmetical error under Section 154 of the Customs Act, the period of one year provided under Section 27 is not applicable to such case. The period of limitation in the facts of the present case should be reckoned from the date of amendment in the bills of entry. Since the appellant have filed the refund claim within one year from the date of amendment which is well within time accordingly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the learned Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order-In-Original on the ground that there is no reassessment of bills of entry but it is only an amendment under Section 149 according to the refund claim filed after one year from the date of payment of duty. Shri Anshul Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that period for refund of duty should be taken from the date of amendment of bills of entry and not from the date of payment as the refund arises only after the amendment of bills of entry. He placed reliance on the following judgments :- Keshari Steels Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay- 2000 (115) ELT 320 (Bom.) Affirmed by Hon ble Supreme Court reported at 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ills of entry therefore, the relevant period of one year should be reckoned from the date of amendment and not from the date of actual payment of duty. The similar issue has been considered by this tribunal in the case of Keshari Steels 2000 (115) ELT 320 (Bom.) wherein, it was held that if the refund is arising out of correction of clerical or arithmetical error under Section 154 of the Customs Act, the period of one year provided under Section 27 is not applicable to such case. The said judgment has been upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported at Keshari Steels 2000 (121) ELT A139 (SC). In view of the above settled legal position, I am of the considered view that the period of limitation in the facts of the present case should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
