9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of a Chinese origin. The inference that the said garlic was of a Chinese origin was drawn on the basis, (1) sack in which the garlic was stored contained Chinese description and trade information was received from petty trader at Gorakhpur that garlic are not grown at Nepal and secondly, Shri Yogesh Kumar Bhimsarya gave statement that garlic was of Chinese origin. In the adjudication proceeding, Commissioner of Customs (P), Lucknow vide its order dated 8th March, 1999 confiscated the goods and also confiscated trucks which were being used for the transportation of said garlic and also imposed penalty on Shri Yogesh Kumar Bhimsarya. Against the order of the Commissioner Customs, petitioner filed appeal before the CEGAT. CEGAT vide order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 94, dated 9-9-1994 and failed to give any finding with regard to the certificate issued by Nepali Customs Office have not been disputed which were the part of the record still the Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that by means of this application, a request was made for reconsideration of the evidence on record and there was no mistake apparent on the face of record which is illegal. He submitted that the Tribunal being the last Court of fact ought to have considered all the material evidences filed along with the paper book which was the part of the record for arriving to a conclusion and non-consideration of such evidence or documents amounts to mistake apparent on the record and as such the order was liable to be set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eged garlic was of Chinese origin or Nepali origin particularly the statement alleged to be a confessional statement of the petitioner has been pleaded to have been taken under duress and pressure. In the circumstances, in my opinion, matter requires re-consideration by the Tribunal. 6.In the case of Laxmi Electronic Corporation Limited v. CIT, reported in 188 ITR, 398, Division Bench of this Court while considering the scope of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, which is similar to the provisions under the Customs Act held as follows : "We do not see the preposition in this decision mitigating against the power of the Tribunal to rectify its mistake. As said hereinabove, whether the Tribunal failed to decide the maintainability/meri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
