2004 (10) TMI 413

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J) (Oral)]. - These applications were filed by the assessee seeking rectification of what is said to be a mistake apparent from the record in Final Order No. 702 703/2003, dated 9-9-2003 [2003 (158) E.L.T. 316 (T)] passed by this Bench in Appeal Nos. C/123 124/2002. 2. We have carefully read our final order and examined the grounds stated in the present app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ount to Rs. 2,78,009/-. It is the above omission that is pointed out as mistake in our final order. This omission which has been explained to us by the Counsel is conceded by the SDR. We are also convinced that the final order did not take into account the appellants specific plea that the duty paid in excess on some of the items as classified by the Commissioner should be taken into account whil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g to Rs. 2,78,009/- have to be adjusted against the total demand of duty on the entire consignment. We note that this plea of the appellants has not been contested by the respondent. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 2,78,009/- requires to be appropriated towards the demand of duty on the subject goods. It is up to the Commissioner to verify as to what is the precise amount of duty on the subject goods, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X