TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alent amount of penalty. The matter was listed for compliance on 2-12-2003. By virtue of present application the applicants have, inter alia, stated in the application as under :- 6. The Appellant-Applicant submits that the basis on which the Impugned Order proceeds is factually erroneous. The Impugned Order states that the goods in question are not meant for captive consumption and in consequence thereof the Board s Circular of 2003 does not apply in the present case. The relevant portion of the Impugned Order is set out hereunder. 6. We do not find that the Board s Circular of 2003 comes into the picture. It relates to the valuation of the captively consumed goods. The goods under consideration by us are not capital goods... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plicant submits that since the goods in question have been used for captive consumption, the finding in the Impugned Order, as to the Board s Circular of 2003 being inapplicable would require reconsideration by this Hon ble Bench. 8. The Impugned Order also comes to a finding that it appears that Manufacturing Costs such as procurement of Raw Material, payment to labour, maintenance of Machinery, and up keep of the Factory etc., have to be included in the Manufacturing Costs and it appears that these expenses have not been included. From the facts on record, inter alia, the statement of Mr. Michael Veigas (at pages 47 to 51 of the Appeal) and the Chartered Accountant s certificates filed with the Price Declaration under Rule 6(b) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11. The Impugned Order at Para 6 (at page 4) provides that Michael Veigas in his statement has admitted that he was aware that the expenses have been made good . From a perusal of the statement given by Mr. Veigas, no such admission can be found. The findings based on the purported admission on Mr. Veigas are erroneous. 12. The issue that longer period of limitation does not apply was intrinsic to the Applicant s plea that the limitation of pre-deposit should be dispensed with. In the Impugned Order there is a reference to the issue of limitation but no findings whatsoever on this relevant issue, which is set out hereunder : 6. In these circumstances, the applicability of the extended period of limitation and impositi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal are incorrect (Bhagwat Prasad v. DSMDC - AIR 1990 S.C. 371). That being the law, it necessarily follows from the statement of facts recorded by the Tribunal that the petitioners had acquiesced in the appeal being decided on merit without insisting on the application under Section 29 being decided first. The Larger Bench in the case of Om Prakash Bhatia reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 305 (T) = 2001 (77) ECC page 300 while considering the application under Section 29B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, have observed that the mistake apparent from the record contemplated by the Section cannot be one that is to be brought out by a long drawn out argument. The mistake apparent from the record cannot be spelt out on the ground that all the grounds m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent application while passing the said stay order and no miscarriage of justice has resulted as claimed by the applicants. The applicants are only seeking re-appreciation of the evidence and reconsideration on the facts as well as law which is not permissible in the rectification of mistake. He, therefore, submitted that since there is no glaring mistake apparent from the face of the record and the application filed by the applicant merely seeks reconsideration on merits, the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. After hearing rival submissions, perusal of the records and the case law relied on by the applicants and the relevant Paras 6 to 12 quoted from their application, it is clear that the applicants are seeking reconsideration on mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|