9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 947X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he part of adjudicating authority cannot be rectified as per the provision of Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, appeal filed by the appellant is required to be allowed for carrying out suitable rectification in the order dated 25.05.2007. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. C/11299/2013 - Order No. A/10250 / 2015 - Dated:- 13-3-2015 - Mr. H.K. Thakur,J. For the Appellant : Shri Willingdon Christian. Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative ORDER Per: H.K. Thakur; This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA NO. PJ/628/ VDR-II/2012-2013 dated 28.03.2013 under which the first appellate authority has rejected the appeal of the appellant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) (iii) Bennet Coleman Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore 2008 (232) E.L.T. 367 (Tri.-Bang.) (iv) Commissioner of Customs, Guntur Vs. Sameera Trading Company 2011(264) E.L.T. 578 (Tri. Bang.) 3. Sh. Alok Srivastava (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue strongly defended the orders passed by the first appellate authority by arguing that appellant should have filed appeal against the orders of finalization of provisional assessment. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved is whether an error committed by the Adjudicating Authority in his order dated 25.05.2007 could have been rectified as per the provisions of Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said section is reproduced below. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which could be rectified by the assessing officers under Section 154 of the Customs Act 1962. Para 7.3 of this order is reproduced below:- The Hon ble Apex Court, in the case of Shree Hari Chemicals v. UOI Anr. - 2006 (193) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.), had observed that there was an obligation on the part of the Department to extend relief given by an unconditional exemption Notification and the same could not be refused merely because the appellants had omitted to claim that relief. Therefore, one cannot blindly apply the ratio of the Priya Blue case and also the Larger Bench decision of Eurotex case to the facts of the present case. In fact, in the case of G.S Metalica (cited supra), the Tribunal held the view that when the goods are asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
