Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Yazaki Wiring Technologies (I) ... vs Cc, Chennai on 10 February, 2012
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
C/314/2005
(Arising out of Order-in-AppealC.Cus No. 44/2005 dated 31.01.2005, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai).
For approval and signature
Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
__________________________________________________________
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the : Yes
order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : Yes
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Honble Member wishes to see the fair : Seen
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the : Yes
Departmental Authorities? __________________________________________________________
M/s. Yazaki Wiring Technologies (I) Pvt. Ltd. : Appellants
Vs.
CC, Chennai : Respondent
Appearance Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Adv., for the appellants Shri T.H. Rao, SDR, for the respondents CORAM Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Date of Hearing : 10.02.2012 Date of Decision: 10.02.2012 ORDER No._______________ Heard both sides.
2. The refund claim filed by the appellants is on the ground that due to a clerical error wrong exchange rate was applied and extra duty was paid. The claim has been denied by the authorities below on the ground that no appeal was filed against the assessment order. In respect of an identical case, the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Goa Shipyard Ltd. Vs. CC, ACC, Sahar 2007 (219) ELT 888 (Tri.-Mum.), had passed an order holding that the appellants in that case were entitled to refund arising out of correction of clerical error under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 subject to the question of unjust enrichment being examined by the original authority. While passing this order, the Tribunal had given detailed reasons for the same. No contrary orders have been brought to my notice, passed by any higher judicial forum. As such, following the ratio of the cited decision in the case of Goa Shipyard Ltd. (supra), the impugned order in this case is set aside and the appeal is allowed in the same terms as was allowed in the cases of Goa Shipyard Ltd. (supra).
(Order dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) (Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER BB 2