Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (6) TMI 615 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2015 (6) TMI 615 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - Rectification of mistake - Re-appreciation of evidence - Held that:- Tribunal vide order dated 17.4.2003 has remanded the matter for limited purpose. Further we find that in the ROM application which runs into 14 pages, the applicant has listed out a large number of points. We have gone through each of these points and we do not find any obvious and patent mistake on the facts. In fact the reasons for differing with the so called facts given by the applic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

upreme Court in ROM, we cannot entertain re-appreciation of evidence. - Decided against assessee. - Application C/ROM/92003/15-Mum, Appeal C/120/06-Mum - Dated:- 23-3-2015 - P K Jain, Member (T) And Ramesh Nair, Member (J),JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Vipin Kumar Jain, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr D Nagvenkar, Additional Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per: P K Jain: The applicant filed application seeking rectification of mistake apparent from the record in order No. M/1530/14/CSTB/C-I dated 19.8.2014. T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sel for the applicant at length, wherein he explained the background of the case as also various points listed out in their application. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR), on the other hand, submitted that the applicant is only delaying the passing of the order by Third Member, as various points mentioned in their application do not come within the purview of mistake apparent from the record which can be rectified by the Tribunal under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act. The learned AR .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he tabulations given from page 2 onwards, it would be seen that on the left-hand side, the applicant has listed out the reasoning of the Tribunal while on the right hand side, they have expressed their views differing with the views of the Tribunal. Obviously, this cannot be considered as a mistake which is obvious and patent mistake. 3.2 The learned AR further submitted that the Tribunal vide their order No. C-III/708 to 710/WZB/2003 dated 17.4.2003, had heard the whole appeal and after hearing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4A which are mutually exclusive. The Commissioner has also not quantified the amount of penalty under Section 114A and has merely stated that the appellants are liable to pay mandatory penalty as envisaged under Section 114A. In view of the foregoing, we have no option, but to set aside the Order-in-original and remand the same for re-adjudication with the direction that appropriate effective rates of duty should be applied, the appellants should be heard and while determining the penal liabilit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version