9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 663X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n without jurisdiction. 2. Shri A.K. Jain, Advocate submits that against the Tribunal s Order dated 11-5-2000, M/s. Tarai Foods Ltd. have already filed an appeal with the Hon ble Supreme Court of India and on 23-2-2001, the Hon ble Supreme Court had already admitted the appeal. He submits that appropriate orders be passed on the applicants rectification of mistake application. 3. We have heard Shri A.K. Jain, Advocate for the applicants and Shri R.C. Sankhla, JDR for the Revenue. 4. The application for rectification of mistake is extracted below : - Petition for Rectification of Mistake Final Order No. 161/2000-D, dated 11-5-2000 Respondents after perusing the impugned final order find that the Hon ble Tribunal had not followed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , is the same as given in Explanation 1 of Tariff Item 14E of the Old Tariff and which was the issue before the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. Since there already existed a judgment of the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Avinash Prefabs (supra) where against Engineering Goods the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 had been allowed, following the Astra Pharmaceutical s judgment therefore respondents would pray for rectification of the impugned final order in view of the decision given in the case of Dalmia Laminators v. CCE reported as 1991 (56) E.L.T. 571 (Tribunal). The humble respondents would submit that there lies a mistake which is apparent from the record inasmuch as the Show Cause Notice. C. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Calculation Chart annexed with the show cause notice proposed duty of Rs. 3,88,261.01 which was more than Rs. 2 lakhs then as per the above Circular, the show cause notice should have been issued by the Asstt. Commissioner and not the Superintendent who in fact had issued the show cause notice in this case. The adjudication order in turn is liable to be set aside on the ground that it has been adjudicated by the Asstt. Commissioner when in fact it had to be adjudicated either by the Addl. Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner. Since this is a mistake apparent from record, therefore, respondents would humbly submit that in view of the Board s Circular which is binding upon the lower authorities in terms of law laid down by the Hon ble Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice forms a part of record, therefore, the impugned Final Order needs to be rectified on account of the fact that the show cause notice has been issued by a person who did not have the jurisdiction to issue show cause notice under the given facts and circumstances of the case. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned Final Order be recalled and rectified and adjudication order passed by the Asstt. Commissioner be held not sustainable on account of the show cause notice issued by a person without jurisdiction. Respondents would also pray for an immediate and out of turn listing of this matter because in case the Hon ble Tribunal does not decide this issue then the time available to them for filing an appeal in the Hon ble Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
