AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned Counsel submits that goods imported were eligible to benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 21/02-Cus dated 1.3.2002.
When appeal was filed against denial benefit of exemption notification in the first round of litigation, the Tribunal remanded the matter condoning the
delay for hearing the appeal on merit by learned Commissioner (Appeals). Consequent to remand by Tribunal by order dated 6.6.2008, learned
Commissioner (Appeals) examined the issue but held that no claim of concessional rate of duty benefit at a belated stage calls for rectification under
section 154 of Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ""The Act"").
It is the submission of appellant that substantial relief claimed is neither clerical error nor arithmetic mistake to invoke section 154 of the Act.
Accordingly learned Commissioner (Appeals) should have examined the issue since similar such benefit has been given at the Bombay port to the
same appellant. Therefore learned Commissioner (Appeals) should re-examine the benefit of exemption notification claimed.
Revenue agrees for re-examination of the matter by Commissioner (Appeals).
Apparent reading of section 154 of the Act throws light that the said section does not take care of the cases which require a detailed enquiry or
discovery of facts since apparent mistakes are only meant to be corrected by that section. Substantial relief claim of the appellant requires
examination by learned Commissioner (Appeals). Eligibility of the appellant to the concessional rate of duty under notification above whether
permissible under the law needs to be ascertained. This is substantial question of facts and law. Accordingly controversy go out of purview of section
154 of the Act. We therefore send back the appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) to call for all the details from Bombay Customs to look into the
issue while examining the present case afresh in light of law as well as requirement of the notification in question.
By this order, we do not say that learned Commissioner (Appeals) shall be merely guided by order passed by Bombay Customs. He shall examine
the issue independently and pass appropriate order. At this stage, learned Advocate says that if time limit is prescribed appellant shall get justice
expeditiously. There is no difficulty to entertain such prayer. If, the appellant makes an application within one month of receipt of this order to the
Commissioner (Appeals) for fixing of date of hearing, that authority shall fix appropriate date and granting fair opportunity of hearing to the appellant
shall pass appropriate order within three months of conclusion of hearing.
In the result, appeal is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with the aforesaid direction.
(Dictated & pronounced in the open court)