9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so an error apparent from the record is not covered u/s 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962? (ii) Whether such facts which the Appellate Tribunal has failed to appreciate but apparent from record and brought to its notice for rectification/correction fall within the purview of Section 129B(2) ibid?" 2.Assessee was issued two show cause notices dated 4-3-1995 and 27-3-1995 demanding duty of Rs. 12,51,783/- on the ground that it had wrongly claimed the benefit of Notification No. 34/88 in respect of BE No. 243 dated 19-9-1994. Another show cause notice dated 22-8-1995 was issued demanding a duty of Rs. 12,01,228/- on account of misdeclaration of the description of goods in respect of BE No. 82 dated 26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the matter had already been settled under the KVSS and, as such, the appeal was liable to be dismissed as infructuous. On the basis of this letter, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as infructuous vide order dated 29-10-1999. 4.Against the order of the Tribunal dated 29-10-1999, the Revenue moved an application for rectification pointing out that its appeal had been wrongly dismissed as infructuous as the dispute raised in the said appeal was not covered by the declaration made by the assessee under the KVSS. It was explained that the declaration pertained to the demand of Rs. 12,51,783/- which was in dispute in assessee's appeal whereas in the Revenue's appeal, the dispute related to the demand of Rs. 12,01,228/- in respect of BE No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 94 and, therefore, it was proposed to demand duty of Rs. 12,51,783/- on account of short levy under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Another show cause notice dated 22-8-1995 was issued in respect of BE No. 82 dated 26-5-1994 alleging misdeclaration of description of goods and, accordingly, duty of Rs. 12,01,228/- was demanded. (iii) The Commissioner of Customs vide his order dated 25-11-1997 issued on 15-1-1998 accepted the explanation of the assessee in respect of charge of misdescription of goods in respect of BE No. 82 dated 26-5-1994 and dropped the proceedings in respect thereof. However, he confirmed the demand of Rs. 12,51,783/- in respect of BE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the disputes raised by the department before the various appellate authorities. Thus, the declaration filed by the assessee on 11-9-1998 could not possibly have pertained to the departmental appeal. It is true that in column No. 2 of Para 5 of the declaration form, a reference has been given to show cause notices in respect of both the bills. However, from the other columns, as discussed above, it is clear that the declaration pertained only to levy of duty of Rs. 12,51,783/- in respect of BE No. 243 dated 19-9-1994. 11.In view of the above factual position, it is clear that the Tribunal, which is the final fact finding authority, had not bothered to verify the factual position even when it was being vehemently contended before it that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
