9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (7) TMI 506 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Rectification of mistake in Tribunal Order regarding consideration of written submissions. Analysis: The appellant's representative filed a miscellaneous application for rectification of a mistake in the Tribunal Order, claiming that the issues raised in the written submissions were not considered. However, upon examination, it was found that the appellants were heard in person through their Advocate, and the orders were reserved after the arguments were made. The Advocate was then directed to submit the arguments in writing by a specific date. The Tribunal noted that the issues raised in the written submissions were the same as those raised during the hearing and were duly considered by the Bench. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the records, as the written arguments were already taken into account during the proceedings. Upon reviewing the written submission filed by the appellants, the Tribunal acknowledged that the issues raised therein had indeed been considered in the order. Specifically, the Tribunal addressed the condition of a notification requiring the importer to use the goods for the production of aquaculture products and export them out of India. The appellants argued that their intention to use the goods for production should suffice, even if the goods were not actually utilized. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that the terms "production" and "export" must be read together. It was clarified that the obligation to export arises only after production, and the failure to meet the export requirement cannot be excused by the absence of production. The Tribunal highlighted that granting benefits to importers without fulfilling production obligations would be unjustifiable and could lead to misuse of duty-free imports. In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's contentions and disposed of the application accordingly. The judgment was pronounced in court on a specific date.
|
