9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tivity of ship-breaking. The ships were imported by him in February and May, 1993. The ships were cleared on payment of additional duties of customs. Modvat credit was taken on such duty paid on the first two ships but was not taken on the third vessel imported in May, 1993. Part of the goods obtained by such breaking from the ships were cleared without payment of duty in terms of certain provisions. Show cause notices were issued seeking reversal of such credit availed of. The notices presumed that the credit of additional duty was taken on the third vessel also. The assessee reversed the proportionate credit taken on the first two vessels where certain goods were cleared without payment of duty. It appears that certain other notices were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the department had corrected the error. However, later when enforcemert was sought to be made, the importers filed the appeals. Shri Patel relies upon the Tribunal judgment in the case of Mark Auto Industries v. CCE, New Delhi - 2001 (138) E.L.T. 399 (Tri.) = 2000 (41) RLT 756 to claim that where the assessee s case is strong on merit, and where the first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal on a point of limitation, the Tribunal could take up the appeal for disposal even after conceding that the impugned order was correct in law. 4. We have perused the cited judgment. We are also aware of a similar view held by this very bench. 5. The provisions of the relevant Acts prescribe the period within which the appeals are requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts. The relevant Acts contain an extraordinary provision that where the Tribunal on noticing an apparent mistake in their order is capable of rectifying the mistake within a prescribed period. This power is not vested in subordinate appellate or adjudicating authorities. It was therefore idle for the assessee to claim that the Assistant Commissioner could have corrected the error. 7. Shri Patel submits that where the mistakes are typographical they could be corrected. The present proceedings could not be covered under that provision. 8. We thus find that the assessee had chosen to disregard the normal code of law even when it was pointed out to him. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in dismissing the appeal before him. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
