9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cal) Shri. Advait Sethna, Advocate with Ms. Ruju Thakkar, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. M.K. Sarangi, Addl. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER This Rectification of Mistake Application has been filed by M/s. Paramount Films of India Ltd and M/s. Warner Bros.(F.E.) Inc in respect of order No. A/85694-85696/17/CB dated 7-2-2017. 2. Ld. Counsel for the applicant pointed out that the said order has been passed considering facts in case of Warner Bros. Pictures International Corporation and same ratio has been applied to the other cases. He argued that this mistake has happened even before the Commissioner(Appeals) and he too has considered facts only in the case of Warner Bros. Pictures Internat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ious and whose discovery is not dependent on argument or elaboration. In this case, the Tribunal rectified its mistake in not having considered the issue of limitation earlier. In the process of rectifying its mistake it considered the issue of limitation for the first time which was not considered earlier. This consideration by the Tribunal was well within the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 35C(2) of the Act to rectify a mistake apparent on the record 3. Ld. A.R. pointed out that the Ld. Counsel has taken so much time in explaining matter. Something which cannot be explained in short argument cannot be considered and obvious and patent mistake of law, as he has taken detailed argument and elaboration in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order relies residuary rule of the custom valuation to arrive at the assessable value. Thus there is no mistake in the order. 5.2 The next argument is that the CESTAT has failed to consider the argument that amount paid as royalty was not paid against the import of Cine-Films but for post importation use of the said Cine-Prints. It is seen that in para 4.1 to para 8 of the order adequately deals with this issue. Thus there was no error apparent in the order dated 7-2-2017. 5.3 The next argument that Tribunal has not considered the decision in case of Saregama India Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Airport[2017(345)ELT (236)]. It is seen that the said decision was not cited before this Tribunal and therefore que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
