9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. This application filed by the appellants is for rectification of what is said to be a mistake apparent from the record, in Final Order No. 1403/2005 dated 4-10-2005 [2006 (198) E.L.T. 406 (T)] passed by this Bench in the captioned appeal, which was against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the party s appeal ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 128/2001-Cus. dated 21-12-2001 which had imposed ADD provisionally on CFL originating in or exported from Hong Kong. Before the lower appellate authority, the assessee had contended that the goods in question had been imported beyond the validity period of provisional Notification No. 128/2001-Cus. and that the final Notification No. 138/2002-Cus. was issued after the date of import and, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsequently their appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with Section 129E once again. It is also submitted that, against our final order, the assessee has filed a writ petition in the High Court. 3. Moving the present application learned Senior Advocate submits that an important provision in Notification No. 138/2002-Cus. was overlooked by the Tribunal while passing the final order dated 4-10-2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect. Learned SDR points out that the goods in question were of Chinese origin. 4. After considering the submissions, we find that the proviso to para 2 of the Notification was not cited before us and the same also escaped our attention when we dealt with the question whether ADD was leviable on CFL with choke imported from Hong Kong in November, 2002, under Notification No. 138/2002. Had i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
