2002 (2) TMI 614

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....] and since there are mistakes apparent from record, the said mistakes need rectification. 2. We have heard ld. Adv, Sh. K.P. Jagadeesan and Smt. Radha Arun, appearing for Revenue. 3. (a)  Sh. Jagadeeshan while reiterating the points raised in the application submits that the issue in the appeal before the Tribunal was that the Asstt. Collector had no authority in law to review and reverse the order on Registration of Project Import. The legal procedure laid down in Section 129D(2) should have been followed. In the absence of which the Asstt. Collector's subsequent order bacame illegal and not enforceable in law. Moreover the classification under Heading 9801 having remained undisturbed in the demand letter, the altering of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8. This overlooks the provisions of law on provisional assessment and it should be considered an error apparent to call for rectification. He thereafter reiterated the other grounds in the application. (b)     The ld. DR submits that the order of the Tribunal has considered all the grounds taken in appeal and arrived at a reserved order. She makes the following submissions as regards the grounds in this application, parawise as follows. "ROM Application in C/263/94 (M/s. Laxmi Electronics) Grounds of Appeal : - 1. That the Order-in-Original amounted to a review of the previous A.C's order. This has been considered in Para 3(a) of the Final Order. 2. That assessment could not be said to be provisi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....documents in the Grounds of Appeal and there is no specific finding of the Tribunal in the Final order thereon. In terms of Misc. Order No. 120/1991-A passed by CEGAT Special Bench A, New Delhi on 15-4-91 (Para 6) not giving a specific finding on an argument advanced by the party where it is not necessary cannot be said to be an error apparent from the record. Para 7 : This relates to Interpretation of Project Importation Regulations 1986. According to the party the Interpretation given in the Final Order is wrong. This does not amount to error apparent on the face of the record, at best it may be a ground for appeal. Para 8 : No allegation regarding retrospective application of Regulation Act was made in the appeal before t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ionally made under 9801, as he found that the other machines have not been imported. This assessment was finalised vide his order dated 4-12-93 for the imports made vide Bill of Entry No. 229/5491. This order was passed under Section 18(2) of Customs Act, 1962, ordering classification on merits denying the benefit of Project Import Regulation and classification under 9801 with the benefit of notification issued under Heading 9801. (b)     We find that on a careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and on perusal of the order in question, that no mistake has crept in our order. The grounds taken in appeal have been covered, as is apparent from the record which needs no rectification. (c) &nbsp....