We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic • Quick overview summary answering your query with references• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced • Includes everything in Basic • Detailed report covering: - Overview Summary - Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars] - Relevant Case Laws - Tariff / Classification / HSN - Expert views from TaxTMI - Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Tribunal Corrects Errors in Removal Amounts, Grants ROM Applications The Tribunal revised the original order due to errors in the amounts of clandestine removals mentioned. The discrepancies highlighted by the petitioner ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Tribunal Corrects Errors in Removal Amounts, Grants ROM Applications
The Tribunal revised the original order due to errors in the amounts of clandestine removals mentioned. The discrepancies highlighted by the petitioner were confirmed by the Revenue representative. After examining the case records, the errors were found to be apparent, leading to the substitution of a new table with corrected amounts for various assesses. The ROM applications filed by the appellants were allowed, rectifying the errors in the original order dated 24.09.2014.
Issues involved: Revision of order due to errors in the amount of clandestine removals mentioned in the original order.
Analysis: 1. Errors in the amount of clandestine removals: The petitioner, represented by Mrs. Dimple Gohil, highlighted discrepancies in the amount of clandestine removals mentioned in the original order dated 24.09.2014. Specifically, she pointed out that the amount for M/s Sunora Ceramics Industries should be &8377; 23,801 instead of &8377; 8157. Additionally, she argued that the amount for M/s Shayam Ceramics, listed as NIL, should be deleted from the table. Furthermore, she brought attention to two other appeals, E/448/2012 and E/10352/2013, concerning M/s Suzuki Ceramic and M/s Digital Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., where the amounts of clandestine removals were incorrectly stated as &8377; 17,256 and &8377; 8157, respectively.
2. Confirmation of errors by Revenue representative: Shri K. Shiv Kumar, representing the Revenue, acknowledged the discrepancies in the appeals E/448/2012 and E/10352/2013 listed for hearing on 24.09.2014. He confirmed that the amounts mentioned in the ROM applications were indeed correct, supporting the petitioner's claims of errors in the original order.
3. Decision and rectification: After hearing both parties and examining the case records, the Tribunal found the errors to be apparent on the face of the records. Consequently, a new table was substituted in place of the original one from the order dated 24.09.2014. The revised table included corrected amounts of clandestine removals for various assesses, such as M/s Rajmoti Industries, M/s Delta Tiles Ltd, M/s Sober Ceramics, M/s Priya Gold Ceramics, M/s Apple Tiles Pvt. Ltd, M/s Fresco Ceramic Pvt. Ltd., M/s Opwell Ceramic Pvt Ltd, M/s Suzuki Ceramics, and M/s Digital Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. The ROM applications filed by the appellants were allowed accordingly, rectifying the errors in the original order.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.