Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cc(I&G), New Delhi vs M/S Oberthur Card Systems Pvt Ltd on 19 September, 2008
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
COURT NO.II
E/Appeal No.561/2008 -SM
(Arising out of order in appeal No.CC(A)Cus/I&G/D/1/191/08 dated 30.4.08 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr.P.K. Das, Member(Judicial))
1. Whether Press reporters may be allowed to see the
order for publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not ?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the Order ?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the
Departmental authorities?
______________________________________________________
CC(I&G), New Delhi Appellant
(Rep. by Shri R.K. Verma, DR)
Vs
M/s Oberthur Card Systems Pvt Ltd Respondent
(Rep. by Shri Mohan Lal, Advocate) Shri R.K. Tiwari, Advocate Coram: Honble Mr P.K. Das, Member(Judicial) Date of Hearing:19.9.08 Order No. /2008-SM(BR) Per P.K. Das:
The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants filed Bill of Entry for clearance of Modules parts for Sim cards. They wrongly declared value of goods in GBP instead of USD as mentioned in the commercial invoice and paid duty accordingly. Subsequently, the appellants detected the mistake and filed refund claim on the basis of calculation of USD. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellants have not challenged the Bill of Entry. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim subject to verification under unjust enrichment.
2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the record, I find that there is no dispute that the invoice value was declared in USD. In the Bill of Entry, they declared the value in GBP by mistake. It is a clear case of mistake due to oversight of the value declared in the invoice. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited reported in 2008 (222) ELT 249 (Tri. Bang). In the case of CC(Import), Mumbai Vs Nicolas Piramal India Ltd reported in 2008 (225) ELT 99 (Tri.-Mum), the Tribunal held that limitation period provided under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 is not applicable to refund arising out of correction of clerical or arithmetical error. It is seen that the mistake in the present case is in clerical nature which can be rectified. So, the refund arising out of correction of USD instead of GBP in the Bill of Entry is admissible without filing appeal against the Bill of Entry. So, I do not find infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court).
(P.K. Das)
MPS* Member(Judicial)