9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 474 - AT - Central ExciseRectification of mistake - jurisdiction - Held that - as regard the issue raised regarding jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority, the same was neither raised before the lower Authorities nor even in grounds of appeal, therefore non-consideration of the same does not lead to error apparent on record in this Tribunal s Order dated 06.12.2016. As regard all other issues on merit of valuation of the imported goods, this Tribunal s order in the para 5 dealt with the issue in details on valuation, therefore raising the same issue once again in ROM application is illegal and cannot be accepted. The issue on limitation has also been considered in para 6 of Tribunal s Order dated 06.12.2016. Therefore all the issues raised in the application have already been considered, therefore no error was found in the Tribunal s Order. ROM application dismissed.
Issues:
Rectification of mistake applications seeking to rectify orders passed by the Tribunal. Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority. Valuation of imported goods. Confiscation of goods, penalty under Section 114A, bonafide belief. Appeals of M/s Jharsanya Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Analysis: The rectification of mistake applications were filed by the applicants to rectify orders passed by the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel for the applicants argued that the Tribunal had dismissed all the appeals in the previous order, highlighting errors apparent on record. The issues raised included the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority, valuation of goods, confiscation, penalty under Section 114A, and bonafide belief. Reference was made to CBEC circulars and Board Circulars to support the arguments. The Ld. Counsel also pointed out that the Tribunal had not given any findings on the appeals filed by M/s Jharsanya Logistics Pvt. Ltd., indicating a clear error on record regarding these appeals. The Learned Commissioner (A.R.) representing the Revenue reiterated the Tribunal's previous order and argued that the issues raised had been duly considered and reasoned upon by the Tribunal. He contended that the jurisdiction issue was raised for the first time in written submissions and not at earlier stages, hence did not constitute an error apparent on record. After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal found that the jurisdiction issue was not raised before lower authorities or in the grounds of appeal, thus not constituting an error in the previous order. The Tribunal had already addressed the issues related to the valuation of imported goods and limitation in the previous order, making the reiteration of these issues in the rectification of mistake application invalid. Regarding the appeals of M/s Jharsanya Logistics Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal noted that it had not discussed or given any findings on these appeals in the previous order. Therefore, the order dismissing the appeals of M/s Jharsanya Logistics Pvt. Ltd. was recalled for a fresh decision. The Tribunal examined the under-valuation issue by the High Seas buyer and concluded that M/s Jharsanya Logistics Pvt. Ltd. bore some responsibility for the short payment of duty. However, considering the circumstances and the limited role of M/s Jharsanya Logistics Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal decided to reduce the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) to 10% of the differential duty amount involved in all cases. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed some rectification of mistake applications while partly allowing others based on the issues discussed and the observations made. The penalties imposed on M/s Jharsanya Logistics Pvt. Ltd. were reduced, taking into account the specific circumstances of the cases.
|
