https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54382 The ROM application filed by the appellant against the Tribunal's order was dismissed. The appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider settled legal principles and written submissions. However, the Tribunal held that it correctly applied the law, addressing the jurisdiction issue and clarifying that the notice did not invoke the extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal emphasized that it was not required to explicitly mention every submission and rejected the appellant's claims of oversight, affirming the validity of its original order. en-us Fri, 27 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:47:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54382 The ROM application filed by the appellant against the Tribunal's order was dismissed. The appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider settled legal principles and written submissions. However, the Tribunal held that it correctly applied the law, addressing the jurisdiction issue and clarifying that the notice did not invoke the extended period under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal emphasized that it was not required to explicitly mention every submission and rejected the appellant's claims of oversight, affirming the validity of its original order. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 27 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54382