9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ESENTED BY : Shri D.B. Shroff, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Manoj Krishna, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President]. - According to the applicants, an error apparent arises from the face of the record in the Tribunal's final Order No. 1 in not recording any independent finding on the plea that the demand raised on goods/equipment allowed to be re-exported i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Om Prakash Bhatia v. CC, New Delhi, 2001 (131) E.L.T. 305, holding that mistake apparent from the record cannot be spelled out on the ground that all the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal were not dealt with by the Tribunal when it pronounced the final order, in support of his above contention. 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. Paras 2 and 3 of our order are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e out prima facie case in their favour. 3. We heard both the parties. On careful considerations of the submissions made, we find that no adequate ground exists either to amend or set aside the order of the Commissioner, as prayed before us. Appeal is therefore dismissed." 4. A clear finding has been recorded on the issue of eligibility of the importers to the benefit of Notification 66 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subject matter of the present ROM, the Tribunal has recorded that the order-in-original, which is a speaking order of the Commissioner of Customs has upheld that the importers suppressed the fact that the goods imported under ATA CARNET were not meant for exhibition. Therefore, in the light of the Apex Court's decision in Amrit Foods v. CCE, U.P., we are required to record independent findings on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
