TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (12) TMI 734
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Union of India v. Kumar Trading Co. - 2000 (121) E.L.T. 18 held that "A close scrutiny of Section 111(o) pre-supposes that goods should be of exempted category, but there is no exemption notification pertaining to these goods has been brought to the notice of the court. Section 111(o) in the present case is wholly inapplicable. In fact, the goods were imported under the letter of credit issued by M/s. Nitu Enterprises of Nepal from another contracting party M/s. Kumar Trading Co. of Dubai. Goods were being transhipped from Dubai to Kathmandu via Calcutta Port. Therefore, the Customs Authority could not have checked these goods as there is no such provision for such goods being confiscate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court but if it could be shown that the exercise of the power by the authority was non-existent or there is total lack of jurisdiction then Court can certainly interfere in such show cause notice." It has therefore been contended that Section 111(o) does not apply to a case where the imported goods are not exempted vide any exemption notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962. It has been pleaded that in the above final order, the Tribunal has upheld the penalty under Section 111(o) despite the fact that the imported goods were not exempt under any exemption notification but only under Section 69 of the Customs Act. Applying the ratio of this judgment of the High Court and there being no contrary judgment of any court on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Nagpur Limited [1967 (64) ITR 67 (SC)] 3. M.K. Venkatachalam, ITO v. Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. [1958 (34) ITR 143 (SC)] 4. State of Kerala v. P.K. Syed Akbsar Sahib [1988 (34) E.L.T. 11 (SC)] 5. ITO v. Alwaye v. Ashok Textiles Limited [AIR 1961 (SC) 699] 6. Poothundu Plantations (P) Ltd. v. AITO, Chittoor, Kerala State [1996 (66) ECR 224 (SC)] 7. Bhagwandas Kevaldas v. N.D. Mehrotra [1959 (36) ITR 538 (Bom.)] 8. Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd. v. V.S.Gaitonde, ITO [1962 (44) ITR 260 (Bom.)] 9. B.V.K. Seshavataram, Bangaru Muralidhar, Bangaru M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed earlier. The Appellate Tribunal denied the exemption under Notification No. 40/85 to the appellants in respect of ammonia used in the manufacture of molten urea holding that only that ammonia which is utilised for the production of Mineral or Chemical Fertilizers will be eligible for the benefit of the Notification. As the Tribunal had followed its earlier decision and the appellants were aggrieved with the decision of the Tribunal the right course open to them was to file an appeal in the Supreme Court under the provisions of Section 35L. The appellants are in fact seeking, by moving an application for rectification of mistake, recall of the impugned order under Section 35C(12) on the basis of Supreme Court's subsequent decision. In the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court is not to form the basis for rectification of mistake in terms of Section 35C(2). He, therefore prays that the ROM may be rejected. 7. We have heard the rival submissions. The admitted position in this case is that the decision of this Tribunal is dated 29-10-1999. The decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court is dated 4-7-2000, which was reported in the issue of E.L.T. of 1st October, 2000. Thus the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court is of a date subsequent to the date of impugned order and therefore the decision of the larger bench of this Tribunal in the case of Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Limited is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 8. Further we find that a second ROM filed....