9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order giving clear finding that the entire transaction of acquiring of all gold bars are legal and there is nothing doubtful and since the said order has not been taken into consideration, order passed by this Tribunal is erroneous and needs to be recalled. Vijay Dasharathlal Patel This application contends that Tribunal has not considered the documents/evidence which are on records and which established that the goods are not smuggled. The applicant also contends that besides the aforesaid, the Tribunal has not considered the following ground :- Apart from the aforesaid, this Hon'ble Tribunal has also not considered, although cited, the following decisions which directly and squarely support the case of the applicant's :- (i) &nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) The Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in overlooking the Voucher No. 11931, dated 23-10-1999 contrary to the case law cited in this connection. The order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal thus requires Rectification of Mistake apparent from the records of the case. (4) The Hon'ble Tribunal erred in confirming penalty Rs. 5,000/- in spite of the fact that no penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 could have imposed. In view of the fact that the ld. Respondent had dropped the charges under Section 111(a), 111(b) and 111(o) of the Act meaning thereby that the import of gold was proper and without violation of any condition of any exemption notification. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licant and giving findings thereon as to why they disagreed with them thus requiring Rectification of Mistake apparent from the records of the case. (3) The Hon'ble Tribunal was in error in rejecting the confirmation of sale of 300 gold bars by seller Shri Vijay D. Patel, Prop. M/s. Paras Bullion which given on the spot to the police on 23-10-1999 itself at the time of seizure of gold by police as has been recorded in Para 1 of the Show Cause Notice dated 1-3-2003 thus requiring Rectification of Mistake apparent from the records of the case. (4) The Hon'ble Tribunal was in error in overlooking the fact that whereas the Customs Officers had released 51 gold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he transaction between the Appellants and dealer not alleged by the Department to be fake, and by not making those gold dealer firms noticees to the show cause notice, the burden of proof was discharged by the appellants. The Hon'ble Tribunal committed error apparent from the records of the case in not applying the ratio of their own judgment and giving the findings thereon, thus requiring Rectification of Mistake. (7) The Hon'ble Tribunal was in error in overlooking the fact that the ld. Respondent had not passed any order under Section 111(a), pertaining to confiscation of gold imported by sea or air and unloaded at a place other than Customs Port or airport and Section 111(b) pertaining to impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 125 of the Act. The Hon'ble Tribunal was in error in overlooking this fact. The order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal therefore requires Rectification of Mistake apparent from the records of the case. (10) The Hon'ble Tribunal was in error in overlooking the fact that since the order of confiscation passed under Section 111(d) of the Act was not legal and proper, no penalty could have been imposed on the applicant under Section 112 of the Act. The order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal thus requires Rectification of Mistake as is apparent from the records of the case. (11) The Hon'ble Tribunal was in error in upholding the order of absolute confiscation of articles viz. shoes, two cloth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the following case law cited in the final submission and thus requiring Rectification of Mistake apparent from the records of the case. The learned Counsel contended that non-consideration of miscellaneous application filed by them and non-consideration of case law cited before the Tribunal has clearly resulted in a mistake apparent from the face of the record in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Bombay Bangalore Freight Carrier Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 101 (Tri. - Del.). 2. The learned D.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue contended that the Tribunal has passed a detailed and reasoned order and no mistake is apparent from the face of the record in support of his con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
