AGK AGK AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.4 OF 2009 Commissioner of Customs (Import) ..Appellant. V/s. Indian Farmers Fertiliser Coop. Limited ..Respondent. Mr.N.D. Sharma for the appellant. CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. : 1. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged order dated 28-6-2002 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. It appears that the imported goods were cleared by the appellant on payment of duty at the rate of 50% instead of paying 5%. The appellant filed an application for refund of the excess duty which was rejected. The matter was carried upto the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by order dated 13-3-2001 held as under : "Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the real issue here is that, apparently as a result of a clerical error, countervailing duty was charged at the rate of fifty per cent instead of five per cent. He submits that the appellants will make an application for rectification of the error under Section 154 of the Customs Act and that the application may be considered by the authorities in law. This is recorded. The civil appeal is, accordingly disposed of". 2. Vide order dated 13-12-2001, the assessing officer rectified the mistake by modifying the assessment order and holding that the goods were assessable at the rate of 5%, but rejected claim as being time-barred under the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The tribunal relying upon the judgment of this Court in Keshari Steels Keshari Steels Keshari Steels Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay [2000 (115) Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay [2000 (115) Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay [2000 (115) E.L.T. 320 (Bom.)] E.L.T. 320 (Bom.)] E.L.T. 320 (Bom.)] has held that the rejection of refund claim of the appellant as being time-barred under the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not in accordance with law. The tribunal however remanded the matter to consider the question of unjust enrichment. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. It is contended that the tribunal erred in holding that the claim is not time-barred. It is contended that the limitation runs from the date of payment of duty and not from the date of rectification. We find it difficult to accept this contention. Till the assessment order is rectified, the question of refund would not arise at all. In the present case, the assessment order was rectified on 13-12-2001 pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court dated 13-3-2001. In the present case, the refund claim was made even prior to the rectification. Therefore, the refund claim could not be said to be time-barred. 4. In the result, we see no merit in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (Judge) (Judge)