9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng on behalf of M/s. Metal Extruders (I) Pvt. Ltd. made the following points- (1) In para 4 of the Order referred to above, reference has been made to the appellants having contended that M/s. Alcobex Metals Pvt. Ltd, Jodhpur and M/s. Bhandari Metals Corporation, Bangalore were clearing goods similar to those which were under dispute on payment of nil duty. The Bench has not given its findings on this contention in the order referred to above; (2) In para 4 of the order, reference has been made to Tariff Advice of the C.B.E.C. No. 54/79, dated 27-11-1979. The Bench has, however, not given any findings whether the Board Tariff Advice could be retrospective in its effect. (3) In sub-para 2 of paragraph 6 of the above order, reference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ided that such goods are appropriately classifiable under Item 68 and not under Section 26A(a). The questions now raised that some other parties were given the benefit of clearance under Item 26A(a) was not made the basis of the order and, therefore, it was an immaterial fact for the decision arrived at. The question of giving retrospective effect to the Board s Tariff Advice referred to by the Advocate was also not relevant or material to the decision given by the Bench. The decision is based on merits namely the ISI specification of wire rods and wires and, therefore, the Board s Tariff Advice was totally irrelevant for the purpose. Regarding the concurrent findings of the fact by the lower authorities, it was not true that the Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ior to omission of rule, it is sufficient to say that this argument was not advanced at the time of hearing of the appeal. Even if Shri Gangoli s contention that this is a legal submission and goes to the root of the matter be acceptable, we do not think that this ground can be raised or accepted while exercising the powers of rectifying any mistake under sub-section (2) of Section 35C ibid. 4. As to other grounds, like concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities and not dealing with the Tariff Advice referred in paras 1 to 5 of the order, it is sufficient to say that a reading of para 6 of the order shows that decision of the Bench was not based on these contentions. It is also not necessary that a Bench or a Court gives findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
