9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that where without any elaborate arguments whether the court points to the error which stairs one in the face and there would reasonably be two opinion entertained about it a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out. If the order of the Tribunal relates to determination of any question having a relation to the duty of customs for the purpose of an assessment, the proper remedy should be by way of an appeal, which is provided in Section 130E of the Customs Act. - case sought to be made out by the petitioner does not calls for any interference in exercise of review jurisdiction. - Decided against the revenue. - CUSTA No. 3 of 2011 and G.A. Nos. 1131-1132 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 25-9-2012 - Jainarayan Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng under the Act are related, directly or indirectly, with the tax or other duties. Section 130 of the Customs Act provides for an appeal from an order of a Tribunal which is not an order determining any of the questions having relation to the rate of the duty of the customs or the value of the goods for the purpose of assessment. According to Mr. Bharadwaj, the question that really called for consideration before this Court was whether the imported duties are excisable and marketable and in the process the said item was liable for imposition of additional duty of customs under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act. Mr. Bharadwaj submits that the High Court had approached the whole matter from an improbable angle by holding that the disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd. Ors., reported in (2009) 315 ITR 449 (S.C.) = 2009 (236) E.L.T. 417 (S.C.). The Supreme Court in the said case had observed that Court of record undoubtedly is competent to determine the scope of its jurisdiction and the powers of a High Court for correcting the errors apparent on the face of the record has been upheld by the Supreme Court. 7. In such view of the matter, we consider the application for review maintainable within this parameter, i.e., if the order sought to be reviewed suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. 8. We have given our anxious consideration to the case made out by Mr. Bharadwaj and we are constrained to hold that the grounds on wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of the record would be made out. 9. What Mr. Bharadwaj, in fact, wants this Court by way of a review is the correction of an error which, according to him, touches on the merits of the case. We agree with the submissions made by Mr. Bharadwaj that if the order of the Tribunal relates to determination of any question having a relation to the duty of customs for the purpose of an assessment, the proper remedy should be by way of an appeal, which is provided in Section 130E of the Customs Act. 10. Applying this principle we do not consider that the case sought to be made out by the petitioner calls for any interference in exercise of review jurisdiction. 11. The Division Bench already came to a finding that the case came within the pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
