TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and attended to. The entire appeal would require to be reheard - ROM application dismissed. - E/ROM/42383 & 42384/2013 and E/Misc./41005 & 41006/2016 in E/546 & 547/2002 - 40385-40388/2017 - Dated:- 17-7-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri R. Subramanian, AC (AR) for the Appellant Shri R. Raghavan, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per: Bench, The above ROM application has been filed by respondent/assessee against the final orders No.40334-40337/2013 dated 26.8.2013. The above misc. application is filed seeking amendment of the ROM application to the effect of stating more precisely the alleged error apparent on the face of record. 2. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -erection. Similarly, the purchase order dated 24.2.2001 included amount towards dismantling (sl.No.10) and rectification of re-erection (sl. No.14). That apart from supply of new items which are pre-fabricated building the existing structures were to be dismantled and the salvaged parts were to be re-used for re-erection etc. Merely because existing structural part were dismantled and re-used, the items cleared as per these purchase orders would not lose the character of pre-fabricated buildings. Such dismantling and re-erection was done at the site itself. He submitted that the Tribunal has erred in confirming the duty demand in respect of these two purchase orders stating that these are structures and would fall under 73.08 and thus du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conceivably two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. The mistake is so patent that its discovery does not need elaborate argument. The error that has been put forth by the respondent counsel in the present application, in our view, is not one which is patent and can be easily discovered and attended to. The entire appeal would require to be reheard. From the arguments put forward, it is the case of assessee that they had received orders for supply of complete pre-fabricated building. To the specific query by the Bench that when existing structure is dismantled and reused, re-fixed or re-erected at site whether it can be called pre-fabricated building so as to be exempted form duty, the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
