2018 (2) TMI 1688 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake - the main ground for rectification of the order raised by the Ld. Counsel is that the case is mainly based on the panchnama drawn at the premises of Shri Bhumish Shah and the documents recovered thereunder - Held that - The present case in on valuation and tribunal passed order not only on the basis of panchnama alone but relying on various other materials such as statements of various persons and other facts therefore merely on the basis of Commissioner s order dated 28.04.2005 that too in different case of Shri Bhumish Shah the order passed by this tribunal will not become incorrect. There is no error apparent on record in the order dated 13.2.2015 passed by this Tribunal - ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Rectification of mistake in Tribunal's order based on panchnama dated 16.3.2001 and cash seizure from Shri Bhumish Shah.

Analysis:
1. The applicants filed applications seeking rectification of a mistake in the Tribunal's order dated 13.2.2015, which upheld the enhancement of price in imported goods but directed re-quantification of duty only for the declared quantity in the bill of entry. The redemption fine was dropped, interest upheld, and penalties to be re-calculated based on the revised duty amount.

2. The applicants argued that the Tribunal's order was incorrect as it relied on the panchnama dated 16.3.2001 and cash seizure from Shri Bhumish Shah, which were previously discarded by the adjudicating Commissioner in a separate case. They contended that since the case was solely based on the discarded panchnama, the order was erroneous and needed rectification. They also highlighted other cases where matters were remanded, indicating discrimination in upholding demands.

3. The revenue, represented by the Additional Commissioner, opposed the rectification, stating that the grounds raised were not part of the appeal record or argued by the applicant during the hearing. The Tribunal's order was reasoned and detailed, and any rectification would amount to a review, impermissible in law.

4. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the main ground for rectification was the reliance on the panchnama and cash seizure, which were discarded in a separate case by the Commissioner. However, the Tribunal clarified that its order was not solely based on the panchnama but considered various materials and facts. The Commissioner's order was limited to dropping the cash confiscation proposal and not binding on the Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision was based on valuation and multiple evidences, making the Commissioner's order in a different case irrelevant to the present matter.

5. The reference to a similar case where a remand was ordered based on natural justice principles was deemed insufficient to demonstrate an error in the Tribunal's order, as the present case had a reasoned order on merit. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no apparent error in the order dated 13.2.2015 and dismissed the rectification applications.