9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R, for the Respondent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. Shri Bipin Garg, ld. Advocate arguing the application for rectification of mistake submits that the following mistakes have crept in, in the Final Order No. A/154/01-NB, dt. 16-2-2001 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 746 (T)] :- 1. The case of the department from the very beginning is that the appellants had collected their payments made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. 3. That whole of enquiry report (P.B. page No. 25-28) submitted by Deputy Commissioner (Customs) is based on this ground that the appellants have raised bills to M/s. S.A. Enterprises and not to M/s. Banaras Silk Manufacturing, the exporter and he has drawn inference that the appellants have contravened the provisions of Regulation 13 and 14 (a) (b). 4. That it is clear from the above a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed ........In the instant case there was misconduct in as much as the business was being transacted not by the CHA himself but through a person who was not approved by the Assistant Commissioner. Whereas this is not the case of the department. The department s case is that the appellants have received payments from M/s. Banaras Silk Manufacturing through M/s. S.A. Enterprises. The department h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) E.L.T. 581 (T) = 2000 (41) RLT 714] and that the Tribunal though noted down in the final order about mention of this case, the ratio of the case was not followed. On this aspect, we find that the facts of the two cases are different and, therefore the ratio of the decision in the case of Krishna Kumar Sharma was not fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Ld. Counsel also submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
