9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... setting aside of all charges finally except the charge made under Regulation 10 (d) of CBLR, 2018. He pointed out that in respect of Regulation 10 (d) of CBLR, while the charge was set aside, but the matter was remanded. He pointed out that while remanding this matter, the order dated 04.06.2020, relies on para 7.2 of the show cause notice wherein it was alleged that the appellant had received manufacturers invoice describing the goods as 'mixed chindi' and was awaiting instructions from Shri Manoj Kannar, and exporters in respect of the same. Learned Counsel pointed out that the statement given by them has no such assertion that they had received two trucks of 'mixed chindis' and were awaiting instruction of Shri Manoj Kannar and exporter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w permitting rectification of mistake. He cited various case laws in this respect. 4. We have gone through rival submissions. We find that the Tribunal had set aside the charges under Regulation 10 (d) of CBLR and remanded the matter in following terms: "In view of above, the allegation made under Regulation 10 (d) of CBLR, 2018 are set aside and the issue is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh decision, after providing the copy of the said statement to the appellant." It has emerged that there is no statement which has not been supplied to the appellant and the charges made in para 7.2 of the Show Cause Notice is not based on any statement. It was presumed by appellants and this Court at the time of earlier decision that c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e favour of Revenue could be in the non existing statement which appellant and Tribunal assumed to be existing. The order already observes in para 10.1 that there is no evidence to support the charge made under Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018 except for this non existing statement. Therefore, there is clearly an apparent mistake in the order. Moreover, the order in the present form cannot be acted upon as there is no statement that can be provided to the applicant. 4.2 In view of above, the application for ROM is allowed. In para 10.1 and 10.2 are replaced with the following: "10.1 As regards the allegation made under Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018, we find that Adjudicating Authority has not countered the arguments given by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
