2000 (4) TMI 260 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Failure to consider additional written submissions, Interpretation of the word 'manufacture' in Exemption Notification

Issue 1: Failure to consider additional written submissions
The appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider additional written submissions filed during final arguments. The appellant contended that the Tribunal did not interpret the word 'manufacture' in the Exemption Notification in light of their submissions. The JDR opposed the Recall of Order (ROM) Application, stating that the Tribunal had provided reasons for its conclusions and that the absence of specific mention of written submissions did not invalidate the order. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's additional written submissions and admitted the ROM Application for examination. Upon reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal found that the technical aspects, definitions, and explanations provided in the written submissions were already considered in the Final Order. The Tribunal emphasized that the decision was based on a comprehensive review of all submissions, written and oral, and upheld the original order, stating that overlooking a part of the submissions did not nullify the judgment.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the word 'manufacture' in Exemption Notification
The appellant raised concerns regarding the interpretation of the word 'manufacture' in the Exemption Notification. The Tribunal examined the technical aspects of the imported machine, the definition of 'rolling bearings,' the features of the grinding machine, and the views of the CBEC presented in the written submissions. The Final Order extensively discussed the technical aspects of the machines, the orders passed by lower authorities, and the appellant's contentions. The Tribunal clarified that the decision was based on a thorough consideration of all submissions, both written and oral. The Tribunal highlighted that disagreement with the decision did not warrant rectification of the order and referenced legal precedent to support this stance. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the ROM Application, stating that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the Final Order and upheld the original decision.