2018 (2) TMI 1688

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....5 whereby this Tribunal had passed the following order: "5.4. In view of our above discussion we pass the following order: (a) The price enhanced in respect of imported goods is upheld however the adjudicating authority is directed to re-quantify the differential value and duty thereon only in respect of the quantity declared in the bill of entry. (b) Redemption fine is dropped, interest under Section 28AB is upheld, penalty imposed under Section 114A to be re-calculated commensurate to the duty to be re-quantified. (c) The penalties imposed on Shri Kaushik Mehta, Shri Devendra Pandya and Shri Bhumish Shah to be requantified considering the amount of duty to be revised." 2. Shri Anil Balani, Ld. Counsel appe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g the demand. This discrimination has also rendered the order incorrect. 3. Shri Ahibaran, Ld. Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue submits that the grounds raised in the ROM application was neither the part of the record in the appeal nor argued by the applicant, therefore the order passed by this Tribunal on the available record, does not carry any error. The order dated 13.2.2015 has given detailed finding on all the aspects and passed a reasoned order. Therefore there is no scope of any rectification in the order. Therefore, as per the nature of the order, if any rectification is made, it will amount to review of the Tribunal's order, which is not permissible in law. 4. We have carefully considered the s....