Cum-duty pricing applied where invoice value already included duty, and a recorded omission was rectified.

Omission to adjudicate a recorded request for cum-duty benefit was treated as a mistake apparent from the record and was corrected through rectification. On merits, the invoice price was examined and found to already include the duty component, so the assessable value had to be treated as cum-duty. The result was that the earlier final order was modified to extend cum-duty relief, with the duty demand restricted accordingly and consequential interest maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the omission to consider the request for cum-duty benefit in the earlier final order constituted a mistake apparent on the face of the record, and whether the appellants were entitled to cum-duty benefit while computing the duty demand.

Analysis: The applications were filed to correct the earlier order because the request for cum-duty benefit had been recorded but not adjudicated. The omission was treated as an oversight apparent from the record. On merits, the invoices and surrounding facts were examined to determine whether the invoice price was inclusive of duty. The value reflected in the invoices was found to subsume the duty element, so the price had to be treated as a cum-duty price. The reasoning proceeded on the principle that where the price realised already includes the duty element, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of cum-duty pricing.

Conclusion: The omission in the earlier order was a mistake apparent on the face of the record, and the appellants were held entitled to cum-duty benefit.

Final Conclusion: The rectification applications were accepted and the earlier final order was modified to grant cum-duty relief to the appellants while maintaining the restricted duty demand and consequential interest.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the realised invoice price is found to include the duty component, the value must be treated as cum-duty price and the assessee is entitled to corresponding relief.

---