2017 (2) TMI 258

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ical) Shri R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) For the Appellant Shri J. Shankarraman, Advocate For the Respondent ORDER Miscellaneous applications have been preferred by department seeking additional time for de novo adjudication, and by assessee seeking rectification of mistake (ROM).  2.  Department's application seeks some more time for requantification of the demand as directed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tioned in the Order-in-Original No. as "14/2010 dated 20.03.2010" instead of "Order-in-Original No.14/2001 dated 20.3.2002".  The applicant therefore submits that there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record in the Final Order No.40553/2015 dated 22.5.2015 which has got to be rectified.  (b)  There is no allegation that white paper was maintained in respect of clearances....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....annot be taken by the buyer of the goods. There is no finding that the raw materials/inputs used by the applicant were the ones which had been removed without payment of duty by reason of fraud, misstatement or suppression of facts, warranting the invocation of longer period of limitation. Hence there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record committed by the Hon'ble Tribunal on this asp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is a fact that there is a typographical error in mentioning the impugned order in the first page of the said final order. This prayer of the assessee is acceded to.  The impugned order mentioned in the preamble of the Final Order No.40553/2015 dt. 22.5.2015 shall be read as Order-in-Original No.14/2001 (Commr.) dated 20.3.2002.  It is ordered accordingly. 5.  Regarding (b), (c) ....