Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Collector Of Customs vs Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. on 24 December, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1995(76)ELT408(TRI-DEL)
ORDER Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1.The above appeal filed by the Revenue arises out of the order-in-appeal dated 27-2-1991 passed by the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, Chandigarh sanctioning refund claim of Rs. 1,77,400/- being Customs duty paid in excess by the respondents due to writing of wrong figures while arriving at the total basic and auxiliary duty on the bill of entry.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein filed bill of entry for 8 bales of greasy wool and cleared the goods on 14-11-1985 by depositing duty of Rs. 1,97,121/-. However, under Column 16 of the Ex-bond Bill of Entry, the total duty payable was shown as Rs. 19,721.60 P. while under the Heading 'Assessment orders' on the Bill of Entry, the duty payable was mentioned as "Rs. 1,97,121.60 P. through oversight, and the respondents paid this higher amount of duty on 14-11-1985. Subsequently, on 25-6-1986, the respondents filed refund claim for the excess payment of duty of Rs. 1,77,400/-and the refund was sanctioned by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise & Customs and paid to the respondents vide cheque dated 27-8-1986.
3. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 10-11-1986 proposing recovery of this amount on the ground that the refund claim had been filed after the expiry of 6 months from the date of payment of duty and hence barred by limitation. The adjudicating authority vide Order dated 5-6-1987, held that the refund claim was time-barred and directed repayment of amount. The lower Appellate authority reversed the order of the Asstt. Collector on the ground that the excess payment was due to arithmetical error and therefore, such a situation is covered under Section 154 of the Customs Act 1962 which does not contain any period of limitation and not covered by the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act. Hence this appeal by the department.
4. We have heard Sh. Sanjeev Sachdeva, learned DR and Shri Harbans Singh, learned Advocate. We find that the issue in this appeal is no longer res integra as it has been settled by the order of this Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Fertilizer Corporation v. Collector of Customs, reported in [1993 (63) E.L.T. 648] wherein the majority has held that Section 154 is independent of Section 27 and that relief under Section 154 can be granted at any time as no time limit has been prescribed therein. The relevant paragraphs [47 to 52] of the judgment are reproduced below:
* * * * * * * * * *
5. The above decision applies on all fours to the facts of the present appeal; hence following the ratio, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.