CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (FROM NEW DELHI)

Miscellaneous Order; Application; Appeal

M/50736/2017; C/ROM/50820/2017; C/50278/2016

ANURAG TRADING COMPANY - Complainant(s)

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS - Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE: Satish Chandra, V Padmanabhan

Manjhi

10 Nov 2017

ORDER

Satish Chandra, J.

[1] By this ROM, the assessee has made a request that the Final Order Nos. 55775-55776/2016, dated 10-8-2017 may be recalled for the reasons that benefit of reduced penalty of 25 percent, in respect of show cause notice dated 8-7-2011 has not been provided. Further, it is stated that in the impugned order the following liability has not been set aside.

(i) Demand of duty of Rs. 5,08,904/- and interest thereon pertaining to bill of entry No. 487751, dated 23-11-2006 as confirmed under Part (ii) of the Order-in-Original under Section 28B of Customs Act, 1962 might have been set aside on similar terms as the demand under Section 28B for Rs. 2,19,52,108/- has already been set aside for being beyond a period of 5 years.

(ii) Demand of duty of Rs. 76,83,582/- and interest of Rs. 11,94,532/- raised under Para (iii) of the Order which is confirmed under Section 28B might have been set aside on similar terms as the demand under Section 28B for Rs. 2,19,52,108/- has already been set aside for being beyond a period of 5 years.

(iii) Interest and penalties imposed in respect of demands at (i) and (ii) above might have been set aside.

List revised none present on behalf of the appellant.

[2] On the other hand, Shri Manjhi, Ld. DR for the department submits that the order was passed by the Tribunal after hearing both the parties. He submits that the request in the ROM is made which accounts to the recalling of the order and redetermination of the issues which is not allowable.

[3] By considering the facts of the case, we are of the view that the appeal was decided on merits. There is no clerical or arithmetical mistake in the present appeal. The submission of the appellant has been considered. It is not necessary to impede each and every argument of the appellant. Only the cumulative effect will have to mention in the order as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT v. Karam C. Thappar,176 ITR 535 SC.

[4] It may be mentioned that in the garb of rectification, fresh order cannot be passed on merit as per the ratio laid down in the following cases -

(i) Prajatantra Prachar Samity v. CIT,264 ITR 160 Orissa;

(ii) CIT v. Malma Texturising (P) Ltd.,292 ITR 488 (MP).

[5] Further, oversight of fact/not considering arguments is not an error and no relief can be granted in rectification as per the ratio laid down in the case of Ras Bihari Bansal v. CIT,293 ITR 365 Delhi. In view of above we find no merit in the ROM which is hereby rejected.

Latest Judgments

We’re always searching for amazing people to join our team.

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.