2018 (4) TMI 1012

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri K. Jayachandran submitted that there has been error apparent on the face of record in the Final Order, since the Tribunal has not considered the contentions of the appellant with regard to the necessity for re-quantification of the duty demand. The allegation against the appellant was undervaluation of goods cleared by them on job work basis. The appellant was adopting the cost of raw materials plus conversion charges as the value for the clearances of job worked CTD bars/MS Ingots. It is alleged that while doing so, appellants undervalued the goods manufactured and removed on job work basis as the actual cost of raw materials received and consumed was not included in the value of the goods but only the cost of raw materials contained....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o consideration. That quantification of duty is not properly taken into account by the lower authorities. That, these facts requires reconsideration being errors apparent on the face of record. The Ld. Counsel pleaded that the ROM application may be allowed. 3. Ld. AR, Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC, opposed the applications. He submitted that the points mentioned by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants are not errors apparent on the face of record. The invoices did not disclose the burning loss even to the extent of 4% as contended by the appellants. The Tribunal has taken note of all the facts and passed the impugned order. The errors require a long drawn process of arguments. The appellant is trying to rehear the appeal in the guise of ROM....