TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. The appellants have filed this ROM application for modification of Final Order No. 263/2005, dated 28-2-2005. 2. Shri B.V. Kumar, learned Advocate appeared for the petitioners and Shri Ganesh Havanur, SDR for the Revenue. 3. The learned Advocate pointed out that in the Final Order, it has been established that the appellant s Company and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oes not indicate the brand name, the applicants are entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/92-C.E., dated 28-2-93 and 16/97-C.E., dated 1-4-97. (ii) Even adopting the value at which the applicants cleared the goods to the persons other than M/s. Index Informatics (P) Ltd., the total value of the clearances of the impugned goods during the material period i.e., 1-4- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainable, the imposition of penalty also fails. In view of the above, there was a prayer to rectify the error suitably. The learned Advocate relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M.K. Venkatachalam, ITO v. Bombay Dyeing [AIR 1958 SC 875] wherein it has been held that Mistake apparent from the covers all mistakes discoverable from a perusal of whole evidence in the case. It ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terms. And substituting the same with the following sentences : If on the above basis, the duty liability is nil then no penalty would be leviable. In case any duty liability is there, suitable penalties should be imposed. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the Original Authority to re-quantify the duty liability. The question of imposition of penalties is kept open. The appeal is disposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
