9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (2) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ke and model Toyota Corona 1600 DLX Sedan. They presented the manufacturer s invoice at the time of assessment. They challenged the valuation and claimed that 15% discount on the manufacturer s invoice. This plea was rejected by the Assistant Collector. The Appellate Collector also rejected the appeals. On appeal to the Tribunal, on 15-1-1985, orders were passed rejecting the appeals. The Tribunal took into consideration the argument on discount. In para 10 of the said order, the Tribunal held that the assessment had been made on the basis of the manufacturer s invoices and that the invoices did not indicate the grant of any discount. 3. In this application the applicants contend that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) had based his deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he applicants practically sought a review of the order and such a course was not contemplated under the statute. According to him, the application is not maintainable. 6. We have carefully considered the contentions raised by the applicants. A reading of the application and also a scrutiny of the submissions made by the learned counsel reveal that the criticism is not against any apparent or obvious mistake arising in the order, but against the very tenor of the views taken by the Tribunal. In 1984 (18) E.L.T. 310 (Entremonde Polycoaters Private Limited, Nasik v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune), the Tribunal considered the scope of an application under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (analogous provision). Foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffect on the decision. A rectification of error is restricted merely to a patent or apparent mistake on the face of the record. The submissions of the learned Counsel on the grounds of discount, freight, and valuation go to the material aspects of the case and call for a re-assessment of the entire evidence. Such a course is not warranted under Section 129B (2). In 1985 (21) E.L.T. 513 (Tribunal) (Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta), following the ratio in the case of T.S. Balaram v. M/s. Volkart Brothers, Bombay (AIR 1971 SC 2204) it was held that a mistake apparent from the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
