2015 (3) TMI 373 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake - Appellant contends that section of RG-23D register and various invoices substantiating the appellant's claim in regard to stock transfer of the goods which were subsequently sold to the consumer and detailing the total 34MT of the goods and not just 16 MT - Held that - On a query from the Bench, the learned advocate could not show any evidence that these documents were produced either before the original authority or the first appellate authority or even before this Tribunal while filing the appeal or before the order was passed. Even from the documents now produced, it is not easily coming out that the objections raised earlier are met. The learned advocate for the appellant fairly concedes that the case was not represented properly before the Commissioner (Appeals) or represented properly before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the lower authority. On asking what exactly is wrong in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, he could not say anything except that the case was not handled by knowledgeable person. - documents now produced were not before this Tribunal while passing the earlier order, there is no mistake in the order passed by this Tribunal - Rectification denied.

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI dismissed the ROM application as the documents submitted were not produced before the Tribunal earlier, and the appellant failed to show evidence of proper representation in previous proceedings. The ROM application was dismissed.