2008 (3) TMI 190

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nbsp; [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) (Oral)]. - This application for Rectification of Mistake (ROM) has been filed under Rule 41 of the CESTAT Rules against Final Order No. 1369-1373/2006, dated 23-8-2006 in respect of Appeal No.C/316/2004 passed by this Bench. 2. Shri Laxmi Narayan, learned Advocate, appeared on behalf of the applicant and Ms. Koka, for the Revenue. 3. The appellants ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts Final Order No. 1373 dated 23-8-2006 upheld the confiscation of the goods and set aside the penalty. 4. Some mistakes apparent on the face of record have arisen. Pursuance to the order of the Tribunal in the case of Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals decided on 10-10-2006 [2007 (217) E.L.T. 143 (Tribunal)] and followed in Overseas Polymers Pvt. Ltd. in Appeal No. C/298/2006 (Order No. 452/20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er Section 5 of the FT (D&R) Act, 1992. It ought to have been considered that the Customs Authorities cannot proceed against the appellants in terms of Section 3(3) of the FT (D&R) Act, 1992 read with Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. The learned Departmental Representative stated that the Final Order has upheld the Original order of the Commissioner who followed the law laid down by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....b-section (2) of Section 3 of FT (D&R) shall be deemed to be goods, the import or export of which has been prohibited under Section 11 of the Customs Act. This legal point was not examined while deciding the appeal as the appellant did not plead this point before the Bench. As in identical cases, which were decided later, we had held that the impugned goods are not prohibited goods and are not lia....