2017 (7) TMI 549 - AT - Customs

Rectification of mistake application allowed, clarifying filing of cross objections under Customs Act

Universal Petrochemicals Ltd. Versus CC (Import), Mumbai

The Rectification of mistake application was allowed, correcting an error in the order dated 22.03.2017 regarding the provision for filing Cross objection ... Rectification of mistake - the observation in the order dated 22.03.2017 that there is no provision for filing cross objection is misplaced - Held that: - para 5 of the order dated 22.03.2017 proceeds on the basis that the appellants did not have facility to file cross objection before the Commissioner (Appeals) in the instant case. However, it is noticed that section 129D(4) read with Section 129A(4) clearly prescribes that in case of appeal filed under 129D(2), the assessee can file cross objection and the same have to be dealt with as if it was an appeal presented within the time - it is apparent that an error has crept in the order, therefore para 5 of the said decision needs to be removed - ROM application allowed. Issues: Rectification of mistake application against order no.A/86474/17/SMB dated 22.03.2017 - Provision for filing Cross objection before the Commissioner (Appeals) - Interpretation of sub-section 4 of Section 129D of the Customs Act - Error in the order dated 22.03.2017 - Consideration of cross objection grounds by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Remand of the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision.In this judgment, the issue revolved around a Rectification of mistake application filed against an order dated 22.03.2017, specifically challenging the observation in para 5 of the said order regarding the provision for filing Cross objection before the Commissioner (Appeals). The applicant argued that the observation was erroneous as sub-section 4 of Section 129D of the Customs Act allows for the filing of cross objections. The sub-section deals with the power of the Commissioner or Committee of Chief Commissioners to review orders passed by subordinate authorities. It was highlighted that sub-section 4 of section 129D extends the facility of filing cross objections and prescribes the manner of its disposal for appeals filed under Section 129D(1) and (2). Therefore, the argument was made that the observation in the order dated 22.03.2017 was misplaced.Upon consideration of the arguments, it was found that the order dated 22.03.2017 erroneously proceeded on the basis that the appellants did not have the facility to file cross objections before the Commissioner (Appeals). The judgment clarified that section 129D(4) along with Section 129A(4) allows for the filing of cross objections in cases of appeals filed under 129D(2), treating them as appeals presented within the stipulated time. Consequently, it was determined that an error had crept into the order, leading to the decision to remove para 5 of the said order and replace it with a new directive. The revised directive emphasized the importance of considering cross objection grounds, setting aside the impugned order, and remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision after evaluating the arguments raised in the cross objection.Ultimately, the Rectification of mistake application was allowed in the terms outlined in the revised directive, ensuring that the legal provisions regarding cross objections were correctly interpreted and applied to the case at hand. The judgment provided a clear and detailed analysis of the relevant legal provisions, rectifying the error in the original order and guiding the further proceedings in the matter.