TMI Blog1986 (6) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by him de novo. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal lie in narrow compass. It is alleged that on 1-9-1979 the Customs Preventive party checked the accounts and stocks of the imported Wrist Watches of the appellants firm in the presence of their partner Shri Kedar Nath Gupta and 20 Wrist Watches, 10 Watch Movements, all of foreign origin and valued at Rs. 4300/-were found over and above the book balance. It is further alleged that 86 Cassettes, one Gang Condenser, 62 Pencil Cells and one audio Taps and 295 Radio Valves all of foreign origin and valued at Rs. 5773/- were also found. As a follow-up action after the seizure of the said goods, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CE OF THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE DIVISION, 18-GOVIND MARG, JAIPUR-302004. C.No. VIII (10)23/80/12925 dated : 17/22-12-1980 CORRIGENDUM In partial modification of Adjudication Order No. 107/80 issued vide this office letter C.No. VIII(10)23/80/12172-75 dated 5-12-1980, 10 Watch movements, which are confiscated may also be redeemed to the party on the terms and conditions indicated in the original order of Adjudication. Sd/- (S.C. MATHUR) ASSISTANT COLLECTOR" 4. It appears that on coming to know of the said Order, the Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur in exercise of powers conferred under section 130(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 issued a Review Show Cause Notice dated 1-7-1981 to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lready extracted above, it is clear that he specifically mentioned all the items which he allowed to be redeemed. In other words, it is not the case where he has simply said that the other goods are allowed to be redeemed; and (ii) Because in the Corrigendum he does not say that there was a clerical error or there was any accidental slip of omission necessitating the correction of the Order-in-Original. On the contrary, he expressly says in his Corrigendum that in partial modification of the Adjudication Order, he is issuing the Corrigendum. When such is the situation, I am afraid that the Assistant Collector (Adjudicating Authority) had no power under the law to modify his earlier Order or to issue such a Corrigendum. For, section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
