TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mistakes need rectification. 2. We have heard ld. Adv, Sh. K.P. Jagadeesan and Smt. Radha Arun, appearing for Revenue. 3. (a) Sh. Jagadeeshan while reiterating the points raised in the application submits that the issue in the appeal before the Tribunal was that the Asstt. Collector had no authority in law to review and reverse the order on Registration of Project Import. The legal procedure laid down in Section 129D(2) should have been followed. In the absence of which the Asstt. Collector s subsequent order bacame illegal and not enforceable in law. Moreover the classification under Heading 9801 having remained undisturbed in the demand letter, the altering of the classification in the adjudicating order, offended not only the princ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be considered an error apparent to call for rectification. He thereafter reiterated the other grounds in the application. (b) The ld. DR submits that the order of the Tribunal has considered all the grounds taken in appeal and arrived at a reserved order. She makes the following submissions as regards the grounds in this application, parawise as follows. ROM Application in C/263/94 (M/s. Laxmi Electronics) Grounds of Appeal : - 1. That the Order-in-Original amounted to a review of the previous A.C s order. This has been considered in Para 3(a) of the Final Order. 2. That assessment could not be said to be provisional. This has been considered in Para 2(c) of the Final Order. 3. Same as (1) above. 4. That the A.C. c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GAT Special Bench A, New Delhi on 15-4-91 (Para 6) not giving a specific finding on an argument advanced by the party where it is not necessary cannot be said to be an error apparent from the record. Para 7 : This relates to Interpretation of Project Importation Regulations 1986. According to the party the Interpretation given in the Final Order is wrong. This does not amount to error apparent on the face of the record, at best it may be a ground for appeal. Para 8 : No allegation regarding retrospective application of Regulation Act was made in the appeal before the Tribunal. This is a new argument. Para 9 : The Tribunal has held in the Final Order that the assessments were provisional. Para 10 : The Tribunal has given a finding in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs Act, 1962, ordering classification on merits denying the benefit of Project Import Regulation and classification under 9801 with the benefit of notification issued under Heading 9801. (b) We find that on a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and on perusal of the order in question, that no mistake has crept in our order. The grounds taken in appeal have been covered, as is apparent from the record which needs no rectification. (c) The issue that the order alleged to amend the previous A.C. s order and the assessments made at the time of clearances of BE could not be said to be provisional and the A.C. could not over- ride the recommendation of the sponsoring authority, have been dealt with ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Delhi High Court in the case of Krishan Madan v. Department of Customs [2002 (140) E.L.T. 52 (Del)] wherein they have held and rejected question proposed in such applications, essentially linked to merits of the controversy raised before Tribunal could not be mistakes under Section 129B(2). Following the same in the facts of this case, when we find that a paper book contains elaborate arguments on facts and law and interpretation, relying on the grounds of each para ably commented upon by the ld. SDR, as recorded herein, we find no grounds to admit this ROM application under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. In the result of our findings herein, we hold that modification to the order already issued is not required. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
