9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or consideration before the third Member who was to hear the differences of opinion between the original two Members on the questions formulated by the Original Bench. The basis of the said Miscellaneous Application filed on 30-6-1998 was inter alia the submission of the appellant that the direction of the learned Members was to cut the tyres into two pieces before clearance for home consumption was an error apparent on the face of the record in view of the following :- (i) It is stated that it is the condition in which the goods are imported that determines : (a) the importability under the import policy; (b) the classification; and (c) the rate of duty. (ii) The tyres in question were imported without any cut. Such tyres are cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... root of the order directing classification of goods under Heading 4011.99 of CETA, and hence such an order cannot be co-exist with; (a) The order upholding violation of ITC provision, confiscation and penalty, (b) With the order upholding classification of goods in question under Heading 4011.99 of CETA as unanimously upheld by both the Members. Therefore, they prayed that the order with regard to cutting/mutilation of tyres has got embodied or introduced in the order through inadvertance or misprision, and such direction is unsustainable in view of certain judgments noted by them. 4. We have heard Shri A.C. Jain, learned Advocate for the appellants and Shri H.K. Jain, learned SDR for the revenue. Both sides reiterated their position ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wed through this application. 6. On a careful consideration of the submissions made in this application and also after going through the final order we are of the considered opinion there is no mistake apparent on record calling for rectification of any mistakes. The prayer made by the applicants for change of classification is a new ground which was not raised at the time of the assessment of the goods before the authorities or before the Tribunal and their prayer in the application to uphold to classification under Heading 4004.00 is beyond the scope of an ROM application and the final order cannot be reviewed as this is a fresh and new ground, which was not before the authorities or before the Tribunal. 7. The further prayed made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cited judgments. Further, classification for CVD purpose under CET 1985 in an independent aspect from classification under the import policy. Therefore, the prayer of the appellant to change the classification and for a giving direction to release the goods without cutting into two pieces is beyond the scope of rectification application. It is also seen that the third Member had agreed with Member (Judicial), therefore it follows that there was unanimity in the view of the Members for release of goods after mutilation. In that view, of the matter, we hold that there is no mistake in the order. Hence, the application is rejected. [Assent per : S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President]. - I would only like to emphasise that the issue of classificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
