9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (1) TMI 533X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng clear finding that the entire transaction of acquiring of all gold bars are legal and there is nothing doubtful and since the said order has not been taken into consideration, order passed by this Tribunal is erroneous and needs to be recalled. Vijay Dasharathlal Patel This application contends that Tribunal has not considered the documents/evidence which are on records and which established that the goods are not smuggled. The applicant also contends that besides the aforesaid, the Tribunal has not considered the following ground :- Apart from the aforesaid, this Hon ble Tribunal has also not considered, although cited, the following decisions which directly and squarely support the case of the applicant s :- (i) S.K. Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Tribunal thus requires Rectification of Mistake apparent from the records of the case. (4) The Hon ble Tribunal erred in confirming penalty Rs. 5,000/- in spite of the fact that no penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 could have imposed. In view of the fact that the ld. Respondent had dropped the charges under Section 111(a), 111(b) and 111(o) of the Act meaning thereby that the import of gold was proper and without violation of any condition of any exemption notification. The order of confiscation passed under Section 111(d) was also erroneous as Section 111(d) pertains to goods prohibited for import and gold is not prohibited for import. Thus there was no valid order available in this case for confirmation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which given on the spot to the police on 23-10-1999 itself at the time of seizure of gold by police as has been recorded in Para 1 of the Show Cause Notice dated 1-3-2003 thus requiring Rectification of Mistake apparent from the records of the case. (4) The Hon ble Tribunal was in error in overlooking the fact that whereas the Customs Officers had released 51 gold bars covered by Voucher of M/s. Amrapali Industries Ltd. No. G/4277/99, dated 23-10-99 at the time of seizure of 500 gold bars including 300 gold bars of the Applicant on 28/29-10-1999 but had not released the 300 gold bars covered by Voucher No. 11931, dated 23-10-99 which was recovered from the Accountant of the Applicant in respect of sale of 300 gold bars to the Appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal was in error in overlooking the fact that the ld. Respondent had not passed any order under Section 111(a), pertaining to confiscation of gold imported by sea or air and unloaded at a place other than Customs Port or airport and Section 111(b) pertaining to importation of gold by land or inland water and Section 111(o) pertaining to importation of gold in violation of the non-observation of the conditions of the Exemption Notification No. 171/94; No. 80/97 and No. 117/94, though mentioned in the show cause notice, meaning thereby that the gold was imported properly by sea, land or air and that there was no violation of any conditions of the aforesaid three exemption notification and hence the importation of the subject gold was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s apparent from the records of the case. (11) The Hon ble Tribunal was in error in upholding the order of absolute confiscation of articles viz. shoes, two cloth bags and cotton waist belt under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 without giving mandatory option under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 to clear it on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation, thus requiring Rectification of Mistake apparent from the records of the case. (12) The Hon ble Tribunal erred in not taking into consideration the Orders passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad in his order bearing Appeal Order No. CIT(A)-111/CC.2(2)/404/01-02, dated 24-9-2002 in which the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had held that Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal has passed a detailed and reasoned order and no mistake is apparent from the face of the record in support of his contention the learned D.R. relied in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta v. A.S.C.U. Ltd. - 2003 (151) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.). 3. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants have contended that the Apex Court s decision relied upon by the Revenue is clearly distinguishable for the simple reason that in the said case, the Tribunal has considered the relevant material relied on by the applicant whereas in the present case relevant materials, etc., has not been considered at all. 4. The Tribunal has failed to consider the relevant material which resulted in the miscarriage of justice. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
