9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (3) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licants No. C/Misc./699/90 and C/Misc./695/90 of which one was for bringing on record additional evidence, and the other application was for adducing fresh grounds of appeal. By this error one of the main ground of the appeal could not be disposed of namely relating to valuation because the question of applicability of new Valuation Rules has been raised in those new grounds. Hence this error vitiates the final order. The learned Counsel further urged that the Tribunal in its order has not given any finding on the denial of cross-examination of the Departmental Officers and also the Department s stand that no enquiry has been conducted regarding the change of samples. Relying upon the case law reported in 1967 (66) I.T.R. 714 (S.C.) , it wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve also submitted that there was no question of the retrospective application of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 because the Rules themselves have been promulgated giving the date from which they will come into force. There was also no error for the Tribunal to have relied upon the Supreme Court decision because by doing so the Tribunal was only applying the law as laid down by the Supreme Court interpretating valuation under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the Tribunal decision in the case of Metal Extruders (I) Pvt. Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 198 (Tribunal) to say that it is not necessary for Tribunal to give a finding on each ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, on this ground, there is no scope of rectification. It is also not correct to say that the Tribunal has given no finding regarding the plea that opportunity of cross-examination of the Departmental officer has been unjustly denied to the applicants. The Tribunal has dealt with the arguments on this aspect by its observation as follows :- The controversy regarding the alleged substitution of the sample drawn earlier from the consignment on 19-9-1988 falls for consideration only in the context of whether the goods were deliberately misdeclared, and in this connection, the issue whether the goods were decorative paper for laminate or whether they are wall paper having been determined by a 100% examination of the goods and uncontrovert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7-1991 whereas the order of the Tribunal was itself passed much earlier on 25-6-1991. It is well settled that mistake under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 can be rectified only if it is apparent from the record and, therefore, no fresh material or additional evidence or new argument can be accepted, at the rectification stage. Therefore, the introduction of fresh document obtained after the issue of the Tribunal s order in the manner sought to be done by the applicants is not permissible under that Section. Dealing with the other arguments on the application by the learned Counsel, it has to be borne in mind that rectification application should refer only to those errors apparent on the face of the records and not those which hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
