9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 480X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e briefly stated as under :- The steamer agent M/s. Lloyd Triestino vide letter dated 4-12-2000 requested for transhipment of goods brought in container No. CAXU 477674/2 manifested in IGM No. 3209, to ICD, Faridabad via Delhi. He vide letter dated 13-2-2000 submitted that IGM as per Master B/L in the name of M/s. Vinjak Metals. Later on, it was submitted that M/s. Vinjak Metals and the present appellant, M/s. Century Castings were associated companies and change in the consignee s name was made to meet their requirement and that the IGM could not be submitted earlier as the forwarder could not send it to them in time. It was also pleaded that the appellants were based at Faridabad and wished to clear the cargo at ICD Faridabad. The Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s had placed on record copy of the supplier s invoice, original bill of leading and copy of the certificate of origin of the goods and insurance certificate, as well as certificate or the bank confirming payment by the appellants to the supplier. All the above referred facts have been overlooked by the Bench while deciding the matter and as such the final impugned order, as contended by the Counsel, sufferrs apparently from mistakes of facts. 5. To substantiate both these grounds, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the following cases :- 1. Ram Kripal v. Union of India - 1998 (103) E.L.T. 8 (Guj.) 2. CCE, Calcutta v. Pradyumna Steel Ltd - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 441 (S.C.) 3. Hari Singh v. State of Haryana - 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , to I.C.D. Faridabad. The request for effecting change in the name of the consignee and port of delivery was declined by the Commissioner. 8. While dealing with the appeal of the appellants against the above said order-in-original of the Commissioner, it was observed that there was no material evidence on record to suggest to why M/s. Vinjak Metals did not take the delivery of the goods from the custom authorities. No request of M/s. Vinjak Metals was also brought on record vide which they submitted to the Commissioner to make delivery of the goods to the appellants, in their place. There was also no material on record to show if the consigner, made any separate request to the customs authorities for giving delivery of the goods to the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee and the revenue. But there is no dispute with this proposition of law in the instant case. In the Hari Singh v. State of Haryana (supra), the Apex Court has only observed that no one should suffer for the mistake of the Court. But in the instant case, as observed above, no mistake causing any legal injury to the appellants, in my view, had been committed, while passing the impugned order. The fact that the order did no go in favour of the appellants, is no ground to hold any legal injury stands caused to them. In that case, the Tribunal ignored the settled proposition of law that mention of wrong provision in the show cause notice, did not invalidate it and dismissed the application for rectification of the mistake. The Apex Court quas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
