TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Order Dismissing Rectification Application: Legal Principles Emphasized</h1> <h3>MIRAH DÉCOR Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS</h3> The Tribunal upheld its order, dismissing the rectification application due to the lack of establishing any error apparent on the face of the record. It ... Rectification of mistake Issues:Rectification of errors in the Tribunal's order regarding disposal of two Misc. applications, applicability of new Valuation Rules, denial of cross-examination of Departmental Officers, reliance on Supreme Court judgment, introduction of fresh evidence post-order issuance.Analysis:The application sought rectification of errors arising from the Tribunal's Order No. 571/91-C, contending that it failed to address two Misc. applications, one for additional evidence and the other for fresh grounds of appeal, crucial for the valuation issue. The Counsel argued that the Tribunal must decide on all issues presented. However, the Departmental Representative asserted that the Tribunal did consider the additional ground on valuation and evidence submitted, as per Rule 1(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The Tribunal also addressed the denial of cross-examination by Departmental Officers, stating its relevance in determining penalties.The Counsel further challenged the Tribunal's reliance on a Supreme Court judgment without providing an opportunity to the applicants to contest its applicability. Nevertheless, the Tribunal justified its reliance, citing the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions on all Courts and Tribunals in India. The introduction of a letter post-order issuance was deemed impermissible under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, as rectification can only address errors apparent from the record, not new evidence or arguments. The Tribunal rejected the rectification application, emphasizing that findings on facts cannot be disturbed unless the order is devoid of evidence or entirely perverse.In conclusion, the Tribunal's order was upheld, dismissing the rectification application as it failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to established legal principles and the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions in legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
