TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this application. Learned SDR opposes this application. 2. After examining the records and considering the submissions of both sides, we note that, according to the appellants, there are five mistakes in our final order. Firstly, the Board s Circular No. 24/2004-Cus. dated 18-3-2004 relied on by the appellants was not considered. Secondly, some of the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal were not considered. Thirdly, the case law cited by the appellants on the question whether the Assistant Collector of Customs was empowered to review his assessment order was not considered. Fourthly, the Bench failed to distinguish the facts of this case from those of Venus Enterprises v Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2006 (199) E.L.T. 661 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, as noted in the present application, are that (i) no opening of finalised assessment without valid tangible grounds, (ii) Assistant Collector cannot review his own order, (iii) No punishment to the importer for fault/lapse of department. As rightly submitted by learned SDR, we had considered all the points in Para 4.2 of the final order, under Issue no. 2 . Following the Apex Court s ruling in Union of India v. Jain Shudh Vanaspathi Ltd. [1996 (86) E.L.T. 460 (S.C.)] and the Tribunal s decision in Venus Enterprises (supra), we held that a demand notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act could be issued without a review of the order of assessment. We also noted that our earlier decision in Venus Enterprises (supra) had been upheld by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that this Tribunal is not empowered to undertake a review of its final order under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act. In the case of Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata v. Sunil Ghosh [2006 (199) E.L.T. 587 (Cal.)], the Hon ble High Court held inter alia thus a piece of evidence if alleged not to have been considered and a finding has been arrived at in that event it would not be a mistake rectifiable under Section 129B(2). This is a case of review since the entire finding has to be changed and the purpose would not be served by amending the order but by replacing the order or substituting the order as a whole. The effect of review is of setting aside the order and passing a fresh order upon considering the materials alleged to have been o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
