9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 978 - AT - CustomsRectification of mistake - this Tribunal while remanding the appeal has relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandana Impex Vs. CCE, Delhi 2011 (7) TMI 88 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA wherein the case was remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to examine the issue of jurisdiction afresh in the light of the decision in CCE Vs. Sayed Ali 2011 (2) TMI 5 - Supreme Court - Held that - there is no error apparent on the face of the record which needs to be corrected under the scope of ROM application filed by the appellant - the scope of ROM application is limited to the rectification of error which is apparent on the face of the record - ROM application dismissed.
Issues involved:
1. Application under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act for rectification of mistake in the Final Order. 2. Tribunal's remand of the matter to the original adjudicating authority to decide jurisdiction after the Supreme Court's decision in Mangali Impex case. 3. Appellant's contention of error in relying on a different case for remand. 4. Scope of rectification of mistake (ROM) application. 5. Tribunal's decision on the ROM application. Analysis: 1. The Appellant filed an application under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act seeking rectification of a mistake in the Final Order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority to decide the issue of jurisdiction after the Supreme Court's decision in the Mangali Impex case. 2. The Appellant argued that the Tribunal had erred in relying on a different case, Chandana Impex Vs. CCE, Delhi, for the remand decision. The Appellant contended that the facts of the case were different, and thus, the Tribunal's reliance on that decision was an error apparent on the face of the record. The Appellant also highlighted the pending decision of the Mangali Impex case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, emphasizing that the Tribunal's order was flawed. 3. The Respondent defended the Tribunal's order, stating that there was no error apparent on the face of the record that warranted correction through the present application. The Respondent argued that the Appellant's attempt to review the order on merit through the application was beyond the scope of a rectification of mistake (ROM) application. The Respondent suggested that if the Appellant was dissatisfied with the order, the appropriate recourse was before the Hon'ble High Court, not through a ROM application. 4. Upon considering the submissions of both parties and examining the record and the impugned order, the Tribunal, represented by SS Garg, found no error apparent on the face of the record necessitating correction under the ROM application. The Tribunal clarified that the ROM application's scope was limited to rectifying errors that were evident on the face of the record. The Tribunal reiterated that it had only remanded the matter for the original authority to decide on merit post the Supreme Court's decision in the Mangali Impex case. 5. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the ROM application, emphasizing that the remand was based on the pending decision in the Mangali Impex case and did not exhibit any error warranting correction. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in Open Court on 13/11/2017.
|
