2017 (9) TMI 914

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....unsel for the applicant pointed out that  the said order  has been passed  considering facts in case of Warner Bros. Pictures  International  Corporation and same ratio has been applied to the other cases.  He argued that  this mistake has happened even before the Commissioner(Appeals) and he too has considered facts only in the case of Warner Bros. Pictures  International  Corporation  and not others. He further  argued that the said order has failed to considered the argument  that since there was no sale, any payment made by the appellant  against the right to distribute  cannot be equalled to a condition of import.  He pointed out that in case of Indo Overseas Fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed  its mistake in not having  considered the issue of limitation earlier.  In the process of rectifying its mistake it considered the issue of limitation for the first time which was not  considered earlier.  This consideration by the Tribunal was well within the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 35C(2) of the Act to rectify a mistake apparent on the record" 3.  Ld. A.R. pointed out that the Ld. Counsel has taken so much time in explaining  matter.  Something which cannot be explained in short argument cannot be considered and obvious  and patent mistake of law, as he has  taken detailed  argument and elaboration in this regard.  He further pointed out that all these i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....with  fact that there is no sale of  Cine-Prints involved and therefore the order relies residuary rule of  the custom valuation to arrive at the assessable value.  Thus there is no  mistake in the order. 5.2  The next argument is that the CESTAT has failed to consider the argument that amount paid as royalty was not paid against the import of Cine-Films but for post importation use of the said Cine-Prints.  It is seen  that in para 4.1 to para 8 of the order adequately deals with this issue.  Thus there was no error apparent in the order dated 7-2-2017.  5.3  The next argument that Tribunal has not considered  the decision in case of Saregama India Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Cu....