TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (9) TMI 480
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The facts giving rise to this application may be briefly stated as under :- The steamer agent M/s. Lloyd Triestino vide letter dated 4-12-2000 requested for transhipment of goods brought in container No. CAXU 477674/2 manifested in IGM No. 3209, to ICD, Faridabad via Delhi. He vide letter dated 13-2-2000 submitted that IGM as per Master B/L in the name of M/s. Vinjak Metals. Later on, it was submitted that M/s. Vinjak Metals and the present appellant, M/s. Century Castings were associated companies and change in the consignee's name was made to meet their requirement and that the IGM could not be submitted earlier as the forwarder could not send it to them in time. It was also pleaded that the appellants were based at Faridab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed as importers of the goods especially when they failed to produce any evidence of having placed any order for the purchase of the goods with the consigner, whereas the appellants had placed on record copy of the supplier's invoice, original bill of leading and copy of the certificate of origin of the goods and insurance certificate, as well as certificate or the bank confirming payment by the appellants to the supplier. All the above referred facts have been overlooked by the Bench while deciding the matter and as such the final impugned order, as contended by the Counsel, sufferrs apparently from mistakes of facts. 5. To substantiate both these grounds, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on the following cases :- 1.&nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat order further reveals that misdeclaration of the weight of the goods was also found and later on, an amendment in IGM was sought not only for correcting the weight of the goods, but also the name of the consignee, in order to substitute the name of the present appellants in place of original consignee M/s. Vinjak as well as for changing the Port of delivery from Nhava Sheva Port, to I.C.D. Faridabad. The request for effecting change in the name of the consignee and port of delivery was declined by the Commissioner. 8. While dealing with the appeal of the appellants against the above said order-in-original of the Commissioner, it was observed that there was no material evidence on record to suggest to why M/s. Vinjak Metals did n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he final order was recalled. The ratio of the law laid down in the above referred cases relied upon by the learned Counsel, is also not attracted to the present case. In the first case, Ram Kirpal v. UOI (supra), it had been observed that every Tribunal has an inherent, jurisdiction, apart from statutory jurisdiction, to correct any error committed by it so that justice is done both to the assessee and the revenue. But there is no dispute with this proposition of law in the instant case. In the Hari Singh v. State of Haryana (supra), the Apex Court has only observed that no one should suffer for the mistake of the Court. But in the instant case, as observed above, no mistake causing any legal injury to the appellants, in my view, had been c....