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 denies rectification in classification dispute, finding Final Order comprehensive and no mistake.</h1> <h3>ZARAFSHAN CHEMICAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR</h3> ZARAFSHAN CHEMICAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 429 (Tribunal) Issues:Rectification of mistake in Final Order regarding non-incorporation of specific submissions and case law in the finding portion.Analysis:1. The applicants sought rectification of a mistake in the Final Order, claiming that certain statements made before the Tribunal were not addressed in the finding portion. They argued that as per the judgment in Omar Salai Mohd. Saib v. CIT, the Tribunal must provide findings on all evidence and submissions. They also cited judgments like Nawab Ganj Sugar Mills v. CIT and Bharat Kumari Sehgal v. Collector of Customs to support their contention. Additionally, they relied on Bakelite Hylam Ltd. v. CCE, stating that Explanatory Notes to HSN should guide in interpreting tariff expressions. The applicants emphasized that the Final Order did not discuss their submissions on HSN entries and Customs Notification No. 117/89, requesting rectification based on these omissions.2. The Respondents opposed the application, arguing that the Tribunal had indeed considered the submissions and case law during the proceedings. They referred to para 11 of the impugned order where the Tribunal discussed the submissions and findings. The Respondents highlighted that the Tribunal had analyzed the case law cited by the applicants and had given reasons for not accepting certain arguments. They also pointed out that the Tribunal had previously classified liquid gold as ceramic color in a different case, supporting their classification under Chapter Heading 3207.90. The Respondents contended that the Tribunal was not obligated to record findings on every submission and cited the Diksha Suri case to support their argument. They maintained that the Final Order was comprehensive and did not warrant rectification.3. Upon reviewing both parties' submissions, the Tribunal noted that the rectification of mistake application pertained to a classification dispute addressed in the impugned order. The Tribunal acknowledged the contentions raised by the appellant regarding the applicability of certain judgments and notifications. While the Final Order did not explicitly refer to each submission and case law, the Tribunal found that it had considered and discussed the relevant points in paras 8 and 9. The Tribunal clarified that the absence of specific references to every argument did not invalidate the Final Order or necessitate rectification. Moreover, the Tribunal emphasized that reliance on an exemption notification could not determine a classification dispute. After a thorough analysis, the Tribunal concluded that no apparent mistake existed in the Final Order, leading to the rejection of the rectification of mistake application.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to reject the rectification of mistake application was based on the comprehensive consideration of both parties' contentions, the examination of relevant case law, and the determination that the Final Order adequately addressed the classification dispute without any apparent errors on record.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
