2018 (10) TMI 460

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... order amendment of the wording “February, 2006” appearing in the para 3 to be read as “January, 2009”. It has been submitted that in para 6 of the Final Order, the change in classification from Chapter 39 as recorded gives a wrong impression - Held that:- Necessary modification carried out. It has also been submitted that all the arguments advanced by the appellant against the finding of suppression of fact in the impugned order has not been considered - Held that:- This aspect has been considered and discussed in para 5 of the Final Order. Consequently, we find no reason to modify the order in as much as the argument advanced amounts to review of the order and cannot be considered as rectification of mistake. ROM application allow .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2006. He submitted that this date has been incorrectly mentioned since the appellant has actually started reclassification of the product under Chapter 84 w.e.f. January, 2009. iii. In para 6 of the Final Order, the Tribunal has observed as under:- the appellant has originally claimed under Chapter 39 and suddenly, reversed the stand and now claiming under heading 8418 by average rate of duty which is not permissible in law. He submitted that this gives the impression as though the appellant has suddenly changed the classification to 8418 with a view to claiming the exemption notification No. 4/2004 after its amendment by Notification 6/2014. iv. He also submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the submissions mad .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ersed the stand and later claiming under heading 8418 by average rate of duty which is not permissible in law. 9. It has also been submitted that all the arguments advanced by the appellant against the finding of suppression of fact in the impugned order has not been considered. After going through the impugned order, it is seen that this aspect has been considered and discussed in para 5 of the Final Order. Consequently, we find no reason to modify the order in as much as the argument advanced amounts to review of the order and cannot be considered as rectification of mistake. 10. In line with the above discussions the ROM is partly allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 06/09/2018) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central Ex .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X