2017 (10) TMI 519

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e effect of stating more precisely the alleged error apparent on the face of record. 2. On behalf of applicant /assessee, the learned counsel Shri R. Raghavan submitted that assessee was issued five show cause notices proposing demand of duty on the allegation that the goods cleared are not prefabricated building (nil rate of duty) but prefabricated structures (dutiable goods). After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the same and allowed the appeal filed by assessee. Thus Revenue filed the above appeals before the Tribunal and vide the impugned final order, the Tribunal accepted the contention raised by the department with respect to two purchase orders that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... purchase orders stating that these are 'structures' and would fall under 73.08 and thus dutiable goods. He submitted that this is an error apparent on the face of record of the final order which needs rectification. The learned counsel advanced argument adverting to the purchase orders and the relevant chapter headings. 3. Against this, the learned AR Sh. Subramanian opposed the application. He submitted that if aggrieved by the Final Order, the respondents have the remedy of filing an appeal. The above ROM application seeks for review of the final order for which the Tribunal has no power at all. On merits, he submitted that it is clear from the purchase order that the item supplied are not pre- fabricated building. When the dismantled i....