Commissioner of Cus. Vs. Laraon Engineers and Consultant

Commissioner of Cus. vs Laraon Engineers and Consultant

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Oct 24, 2005

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/40594

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/40594
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: S Kang, Vice-
Decided On: Oct 24, 2005
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Customs

Key legal issue: Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Cus.

Respondent

Laraon Engineers and Consultant

Legal References

Reported In: (2006)(193)ELT192TriDel

Excerpt

1. the revenue filed this application for stay of the operation of the impugned order on the ground that the refund claim filed by the respondent was allowed. in the impugned order, the applicant without challenging the assessment order filed the refund which is against the principles of law laid down by the hon'ble supreme court in the case of cce v. flock india pvt. ltd. reported in 2000 (120) e.l.t. 285. the contention of the respondent is that the refund is of the amount, which was deposited in excess due to clerical error. the contention is that the packing charges were mentioned in the bill of entry as 5500 euro instead of 55 euro as mentioned in the invoice. i find that in this situation when the refund is due to clerical error, prima facie, i find no infirmity in the impugned order, the stay petition is dismissed.2. further, the commissioner (appeals) only remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the refund claim on merit. the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed in respect of refund. in these circumstances, i find no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. The Revenue filed this application for stay of the operation of the impugned order on the ground that the refund claim filed by the respondent was allowed. In the impugned order, the applicant without challenging the assessment order filed the refund which is against the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Flock India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285. The contention of the respondent is that the refund is of the amount, which was deposited in excess due to clerical error. The contention is that the packing charges were mentioned in the Bill of Entry as 5500 EURO instead of 55 EURO as mentioned in the invoice. I find that in this situation when the refund is due to clerical error, prima facie, I find no infirmity in the impugned order, the stay petition is dismissed.

2. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) only remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the refund claim on merit. The appeal filed by the respondent was allowed in respect of refund. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Cus. vs Laraon Engineers and Consultant Same Subject Customs Same Judge S Kang, Vice-

Customs Adjudicating authority Clerical error supreme court Bill of entry In respect of prima facie