TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... priating the amount paid by the Appellant towards Antidumping duty etc., it can be said that the said order is passed without authority of the law since it is a settled principle of law, as has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE BANK OF INDIA ORS VERSUS S.N. GOYAL [ 2008 (5) TMI 649 - SUPREME COURT] and HARI SINGH MANN VERSUS HARBHAJAN SINGH BAJWA [ 2000 (11) TMI 1221 - SUPREME COURT] and in many other decisions, that the court becomes functus officio the movement an official order disposing of case is signed and such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or grammatical error while a Quasi-Judicial Authority will become functus officio only when its order is pronounced, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntry of origin of the product and the genuineness of the manufacturing exporter. During such investigation, Appellant paid Antidumping duty of Rs.73,49,724/- allegedly leviable on the goods and attended adjudication process by waving off show-cause notice, perhaps for expeditious release of its goods. Concerned Commissioner adjudicated the matter and order for confiscation of goods as well as imposed redemption fine of Rs.17 lacks with penalty of Rs.5 lacks under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. Appellant assailed the said order before this Tribunal that was allowed. Consequently Appellant sought for refund of Antidumping duty etc. but received reply to the effect that no such Order-in- Original No. 47/2008 of CC JCH dated 25.04.2008 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailable against Order-in-Original No. 25/2008 and corrigendum had not been challenged before this Tribunal, Appellant s claim for refund of Antidumping duty, that was appropriated through addendum/corrigendum has been rightly rejected by the refund sanctioning authority that needs no interference by this Tribunal. 5. We have taken note of the submissions and perused the case record. At the outset we must make it clear that appeal number, file number, date of order, authority passing the order and the party being same, error in typing out a wrong appeal number would not have any impact on the decision rendered by this Tribunal in respect of the said order and, therefore, there is no requirement of agitating the same matter again before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue (Respondent) that goods were not manufactured by M/s. Southern Building Materials Sanitary Co. Ltd. so as to deny exemption of Antidumping duty under Notification No. 72/2005-Cus. and 73/2003-Cus, on this score also confirmation and appropriation of Antidumping duty through an addendum/corrigendum is infructuous. Hence the order. ORDER 7. The appeal is allowed to the extent of setting aside of the addendum/corrigendum dated 26.06.2008 issued subsequent to the order of Commissioner of Customs (Import), JNCH, Nhava Sheva, Mumbai-II originally passed on dated 25.04.2008. Order of CESTAT against the Commissioner s order dated 25.04.2008 stands as it is. Appellant is entitled to consequential relief, if any. ( Operative portion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
