TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bout a substantive change which is prejudicial to the interest of respondents. Such a material change could not be made by the adjudicating authority as being quasi-judicial authority it could not review its own order in the absence of express powers in the statute - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/1480/2008 - A/61900/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 8-8-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Sh. V.K. Trehan, AR for the Appellant Sh. Sudeep Singh, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per : Devender Singh The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents had applied for approval of their application for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieved by the corrigendum, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the corrigendum dt. 11.12.2007 and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved from the same, the Revenue has filed this appeal. 3. Ld. AR submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that substantial benefit was denied for the period 01.09.2006 to 20.03.2007 by way of corrigendum without affording any opportunity being heard. He said that corrigendum brought no material change to the original order. He further argued that the letter from the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Jammu was produced along with expansion claim on 20.03.2007 and hence the adjudicating authority has clarified the same vide the corrigendum. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pinion of Law Ministry. The relevant portion of the above said Circular are reproduced below:- While reviewing an Order-in-Original passed by a Commissioner, it was observed that the said Commissioner made substantive changes in his order by issuing a corrigendum nearly 10 months after issue of the order-in-original. It was felt, prima facie, that the substantive changes brought about by the corrigendum may be beyond the scope of Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 and may thus not stand judicial scrutiny by the appellate authorities. 2. The Board, therefore, referred the matter to the Law Ministry and sought their opinion whether the corrigendum issued subsequent to Adjudication Order passed by the Commissioner is legally valid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
