TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (9) TMI 435
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g that excess components found on examination, which were not declared on the Bill of Entry are liable to confiscation and upheld the order of confiscation, but reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 4.00 lacs and remitted the penalty. In the said order, an observation, was also made that the list attested by DGTD does not cover the excess quantity. The applicants moved a rectification application as well as reference application in respect of the said order dated 23-5-1994. They were considered and disposed of by this Bench vide this Bench's Order No. 1946/94-WRB, dated 27-10-1994. In their first rectification application, their main grievance was that it has been incorrectly observed by the Tribunal that the list attested by DGTD did not cove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of such applications are maintainable, especially when all the points urged in their earlier application have already been considered and found to be not acceptable for recalling our final order-in-appeal. 3.1 In the present order, we have carefully considered the submissions by the ld. Counsel urging that more than one rectification is maintainable. 3.2 The main tenets of the arguments of the ld. Counsel urging that more than one rectification application is maintainable in law are as below : (i) Merely because no objection was raised regarding the factual position at the time of dictation of the order-in-appeal passed by this Bench, records in existence cannot be overlooked, even though they were not produced at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reference application and could not have disposed of both the applications by a common order; (viii) An order passed on a rectification application can be the subject matter of further proceedings in rectification/modification. In this context, reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Hindwire Industries v. ITO reported in AIR 1995 SC 1133. 4. We have carefully considered these submissions. Before we give our findings on these submissions, seriatim, we are to identify the following factual position admitted and pleaded before us, while disposing of their appeal and their earlier rectification application. The appellants declared on the Bill of Entry that the consignment contained 2,500 sets of scooter components, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r second application, our findings are as below : Regarding points (i) & (ii) The only record, which is alleged to have been not looked into by the Tribunal, is the subsequent attestation by DGTD for the excess quantity noticed. This record was not produced during the hearing of the appeal but was sought to be introduced during the hearing of rectification application. It was also admitted that this list attestation for 3,000 sets was subsequent to detection of excess quantity. Hence even if this document is taken into account, it can only cover licensing angle and cannot cover misdeclaration. The order passed by this Bench does not call for any modification on account of not looking into this document. Regarding point (iii) The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the basis of case laws cited before the Tribunal. Regarding point (vii) If two applications - one for rectification on fact and law and another for reference to the High Court on the same points of law urged in rectification application, there can be no objection for disposing of both by a common order. There is no contention that the Tribunal has passed a non-speaking order. Detailed findings have been given in regard to each of their arguments. If these findings are not acceptable to them, it is not open to them to move further application agitating the same points again and again. They have to seek remedy elsewhere as permitted under the law. Regarding point (viii) The case of Hindwire Industries cited by the ld. Advocate ....