9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (11) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Watch Hand Springs and Pencil cells are not covered by the Notification No. 204/84/Cus., dated 22-7-84 issued under Section 123 of the Customs Act; that this notification escaped the notice of the Tribunal and it is, therefore, prayed to take this notification into consideration and rectify the Final Order accordingly. He, further, submitted that the Electronic Watch Module as well as Electronic Calculators were assembled in India and had been procured by the appellants after paying the Central Excise duty and as such provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act will not apply in respect of these products. The learned Advocate relied upon the decision in the case of Income-tax Office v. Ashok Textile Ltd., AIR 1961 S.C. 699 wherein it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Income-tax v. Mithalal Ashok Kumar, 1996 (158) ITR 755. Finally, he relied upon the decision in the case of Shri Jawahar Lal Desh Lahra v. CCE, Jaipur, Final Order No. 4/434/87-NRB, dated 21-7-87 wherein it was held that provisions of Chapter 4A of the Customs Act would not apply to the goods notified under Section 11B of the Act, if they are not imported or in other words if they are locally manufactured. 3. Opposing the prayer Shri Rajiv Tandon, learned SDR, submitted that the Final Order was passed by the Tribunal after considering the submissions made by the applicants in the memorandum of appeal as well as the submissions made by the learned Advocate who appeared on his behalf at the time of hearing; that at no stage the arguments ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SDR also relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Om Prakash Bhatia v. Commissioner of Customs, 2001 (131) E.L.T. 305 (Tribunal) wherein it was held that mistake apparent from the record contemplated by Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act cannot be one that is to be brought out by a long drawn argument. Finally, he relied upon the decision in the case of Pacific Granite Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, 2001 (76) ECC 776 and Platewel Procen and Chemical v. CCE, Vadodara, [2001 (132) E.L.T. 332 (T) = 2001 (77) ECC 405 (Tribunal)]. He also mentioned that it is a matter of fact whether Section 123 applies or not to the particular commodity and it cannot be a subject-matter of ROM. 4. We have considered the submissions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
