TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nair This application is for rectification of mistake in this Tribunal's order No.A/93907-93924/ 16/CB dated 18/08/2016. 2. Shri C.S. Biradar Ld. Counsel for the applicant reiterating the application submits that following mistakes crept in the order which needs to be rectified: I. It was pleaded that quotations were received by Fax machine installed in the office of mother in law of Mr. J.P. Calaco. The Ld. Commissioner has not relied on this material and the same was not relied in the show-cause notice. Cross examination was denied to the importer but was conducted by the adjudicator behind the applicant. The applicant relied upon various judgments in their written submission dt. 22/08/2016. No finding on the said submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 002 were available with Central Intelligence Unit of Customs Department. Accordingly, the same was unearthed subsequently. 3. Shri Roopam Kapoor, Learned Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue support the order of this Tribunal and submits that all the issues raised in the application have been adequately addressed by this Tribunal. Hence no error can be found in the order of this Tribunal, consequently no question of rectification, hence the application may be dismissed. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We deal each point of the proposed correction as under: I. As regard the submission of the appellant that the Commissioner has not relied on the quotation received by Fax machin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r order on 18.08.2016. Therefore non-consideration of any submissions made subsequently cannot lead to an error crept in the order. IV. As regard the plea of applicant that against common impugned order, appeal of the Revenue, bearing No.C/702/06, on the issue of penalty under Section 114A was dismissed by Single Member Bench both appeals should have heard together. We do not find any substance in this submission for the reason that both the said appeals were heard separately and decided separately. Since the appeal No.C/702/06 was not before this Bench, reference of the same is irrelevant particularly for the issue on rectification of mistake. V. As regard the price of USD 62.10 as against Singapore wholesale price USD 53.64, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
