1. The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. PVR/281/ NGP/APPL/2012, dated 31-12-2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Nagpur. Vide the impugned order, the learned lower appellate authority has set aside the order of the assessing officer dated 24-1-2012 granting refund of excess duty paid by the importer, M/s. Minex Metallurgical Co. Pvt. Ltd., the appellant herein, on the ground that without challenging the assessment, refund could not have been sanctioned in view of the Apex Court's decision in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant imported "Ferro Titanium Cored Wire" vide bill of entry No. 2650, dated 7-9-2011. In the bill of entry, the transaction value was declared as Euro 12786.50 instead of US $ 12786.50. The appellant realized the mistake immediately after payment of duty and clearance of the goods and therefore, they filed a refund claim towards the excess payment of duty made. He also produced the copy of the purchase order No. 51/00381031/00 dated 4-7-2011 wherein the currency was correctly indicated as US $ and also the Sales Confirmation Order dated 30-6-2011 which also shows the currency as US $. He also obtained a letter from the foreign supplier indicating that the transaction was in US $ whereas the invoice issued, the same was wrongly mentioned as Euro. He also produced a letter from the banker M/s. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai wherein the bank has confirmed that the amount paid to the foreign supplier was US $ 12786. In the light of these evidences, the adjudicating authority was convinced that there was a genuine error committed by the importer, the refund claim was examined from the unjust enrichment angle also and it was found that the appellant had not passed on duty incidence to anybody else. Accordingly, he sanctioned refund claim of the excess duty paid amounting to Rs. 5,59,861/- to the appellant importer. Revenue was aggrieved of this order and they filed an appeal before the lower appellate authority. The lower appellate authority held that if the goods have been cleared on assessment on payment of duty, without challenging the assessment, the appellant could not have been granted any refund as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that refund claim contrary to assessment order is not maintainable without order of assessment having been modified in appeal or reviewed under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962, and the original order would stand and therefore, grant of refund is incorrect in law. Hence, the appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Priya Blue Industries Ltd.'s case (supra) deals with a situation where the assessment is completed by the competent officer and unless the assessment is reviewed under Section 28, the question of grant of refund claim would not arise. In the present case, the issue involved relates to a mistake by wrongly declaring the foreign currency. This mistake has been rectified in the order of the adjudicating authority and consequently, refund of excess duty paid has been sanctioned. The order of the adjudicating authority itself is a review of the earlier assessment and it is consequent upon such review, refund has been granted and therefore, the ratio of Priya Blue Industries Ltd.'s case (supra) would not apply. He also relies on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Secure Meters Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs [Final Order No. 56252 of 2013, dated 5-3-2013] which also involved an identical matter wherein wrong currency was mentioned in the bill of entry and the refund claim was rejected on the same ground as mentioned above. This Tribunal held that the application of wrong exchange rate is a clerical error and on account of such clerical error, a higher amount of duty ha