9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the synopsis filed does the appellant canvass contrary to its own stand on the classification by alleging that the classification by the Revenue under CTH 8904 was wrong while the proper classification should have been either under CTH 8901 or 8905. There are no disputes as regards raising new grounds or additional grounds at any stage, but the peculiarity of the case is that the Revenue has only acted upon the appellant s submission; the Revenue has gone by the appellant s own classification in the first available document viz., the Bill of Entry, where the classification is categoric and thus, based on such Bill of Entry, show cause notice was issued - even the Adjudicating Authority lacks jurisdiction as he has become functus officio. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fall within the ambit of Customs Tariff Heading 8904 and that the tug boat is nothing but a work boat, which is a self-propelled and ocean-going vessel . Ld. Advocate would also submit that the Bench has jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's application for rectification. 2.2 Ld. Advocate further contended that they had taken additional grounds inter alia relying upon one of the orders of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Boskalis Dredging India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of Cus., Bhubaneswar reported in 2001 (135) E.L.T. 1396 (Tri. - Kolkata) which was approved by the Hon ble Supreme Court and that even the said additional grounds have not been considered by the Bench in the impugned Final Order. 2.3 Ld. Advoca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us requested that the ROM application be dismissed. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and at the threshold, we have no hesitation to accept the legal position that the Bench has jurisdiction to entertain the above rectification application provided only the apparent errors are pointed out; it is quite clear that the allegation as to the errors in the Final Order can only be challenged in a Higher Court, to which this Bench lacks jurisdiction. 5.1 The show cause notice came to be issued based on the appellant s own classification in its Bill of Entry under CTH 8904 00 00 and it inter alia proposed to deny exemption under Notification Nos. 27/2008-Cus., dated 1-3-2008 and 1/2011-C.E., dated 1-3-2011. The appellant filed its exhaust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placed on record including the above Bill of Entry. At this stage, it is clear that even the Adjudicating Authority lacks jurisdiction as he has become functus officio. Now when argued differently, that too contrary to the basic document i.e., the Bill of Entry, it is difficult to accept since the argument runs counter to Bill of Entry. 5.3 The Revenue/Adjudicating Authority having considered the most crucial document namely, the Bill of Entry, did not cause any enquiries as regards the classification of the boat in question, obviously because the same was done so by the appellant itself who chose not to deviate from its stand at any stage. Hence, going by the documents, a finding has been arrived at since CTH 8904 falls under Chapter 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
