TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 978X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to examine the issue of jurisdiction afresh in the light of the decision in CCE Vs. Sayed Ali [2011 (2) TMI 5 - Supreme Court] - Held that: - there is no error apparent on the face of the record which needs to be corrected under the scope of ROM application filed by the appellant - the scope of ROM application is limited to the rectification of error which is apparent on the face of the record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Tribunal is based on a preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue show-cause notice under the Customs Act. On the said preliminary issue, this Hon'ble Tribunal has observed that the Apex court in its decision in the case of CC Vs. Sayed Ali [2011(265) ELT 17 (SC)] held that the DRI officers were not proper officers in terms of Section 2(34) of the customs Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id decision, the Tribunal has committed an error apparent on the face of the record and the same requires rectification. He further submitted that in the case of Mangali Impex Vs. UOI. decided by the Delhi High Court and now pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if it is decided that the and not by the original adjudicating authority or the Commissioner who has no such power. In this v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of record and the impugned order, I am of the considered view that there is no error apparent on the face of the record which needs to be corrected under the scope of ROM application filed by the appellant. Further, I also hold that the scope of ROM application is limited to the rectification of error which is apparent on the face o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
