2018 (9) TMI 935

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....K. Manjhi, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan: The present RoM application is filed against the Final Order No.51381/2018 dated 12.04.2018. 2. Heard Shri Mohan Lal, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Sh. R.K. Manjhi, ld. AR for the Revenue. 3. Ld. Advocate argued the grounds of RoM as follows: (i) The Final Order has partly allowed the appeal filed by the appellant. It has u....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the 'server' at the time of import and hence, the value of the software is to be added to the hardware for the purpose of charging the customs duty". He submitted that the argument is not factually correct. Finally, he submitted that the apparent mistake may be corrected. 4. Ld. AR who appeared for the Revenue opposed the RoM application. He submitted that the appellant is trying to arg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rted, pre-loaded with the software. Ld. Advocate has tried to argue at length to prove his argument that the software was downloaded electronically after the import of the server. 7. It appears to us that the appellant is aggrieved by the view taken by the Tribunal that the value of software is required to be added to the value of the imported server. The correct course of action in such a scenar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ich would have to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. It has been held that a decision on a debatable point of law cannot be a "mistake apparent from the record". 8. Since the final order was pronounced and dictated in the presence of the ld. Advocate, we are of the view that RoM cannot be entertained, since it amounts to ....