9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. This is an application by M/s. DSM Anti-Infectives India (Pvt.) Ltd. for rectification of mistake in Tribunal s Final Order Nos. 697-698/2003 NB(C), dated 19-11-2003 [2004 (165) E.L.T. 69 (T)]. 2. Shri V. Swaminathan, learned Consultant, submitted that the issue decided by the Final Order in question was whether the re-processing operations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l has observed as under : It is not disputed by the Appellants that they had mentioned only Testing in the declaration filed by them. The plea of Revenue neutrality also does help the Appellants as the Revenue has also alleged value addition in the re-processed goods which has also not been rebutted by the appellants . 3.1 He contended that the said observation of the Tribunal is a mistake ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d mistake relates to the effect that the Revenue has not at all alleged any value addition of the reprocessed goods, either in the show cause notice dated 12-3-2001 or in the Order-in-Original dated 15-11-2002 and as such the question of their rebuttal by them does not arise at all. 4. Opposing the prayer, Shri Kumar Santosh, learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that the syno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the actual processes carried out by them. 5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. As far as the aspect of value addition is concerned, there is no mistake apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the Applicants had themselves mentioned the same in the synopsis submitted by their learned Consultant. Regarding the other mistake pointed out by the learned Consultant, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time of hearing the learned Consultant had not controverted the contention of the learned Senior Departmental Representative that they had declared that the goods were received back only for testing . However, the D-3 declaration clearly mentions in Remark Column as Rejected material received for re processing under Rule 173H . Thus the record speaks otherwise and as such to this extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
