2026 (7) TMI 475

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ustoms Appeal No. 52953 of 2019. Ld. Counsel for the applicant/appellant has submitted that the demand in Annexure-II of the Show Cause Notice has been computed wrongly on some of the items. The consolidated demand for 23 past Bills of Entry in Annexure-I thereof is also mentioned to be erroneous and incorrect. This issue was raised in para M of the appeal memo but the said ground has not been considered. Ld. Counsel further mentioned that the ground raised in para S and para I & Q of the appeal memo have also not been dealt with in the impugned final order. The final order is alleged to be passed on the admissions and failures on the part of the appellant whereas there is no admission on record and the onus was on the department which h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s inadvertently been added while redetermining the demand. With respect to certain other imported products, the rate of duty is also acknowledged to have been wrongly mentioned as has now been explained in Chart B submitted today by the Department. Therefore, we foremost have perused the said chart, as below: Chart-B Sl. No. BE No. Invoice No. and Date Wrong rate of Duty on items in itself mentioned/stated in Annexure-II Wrong computation of duty Vis-a-Vis Invoice/BE & Claim of Deptt. Comments 1 3283673 JF130819 (19.08.2013) Duty computed @BCD 10%, CVD 12%, SHE Cess 1%, Addl. Duty 4%. But Items Scarf, Gloves, and Woolen Sock did not have Addl. Duty of 4%. Matches with invoice (Para 26 of Order-Pag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llant made no admission but the order wrongly records that there is admission of the appellant for the alleged misdeclaration. It is held that this grievance is beyond the scope of the application seeking rectification of mistake in any order. We draw our support from the decision of Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar vs. Jyoti Industries reported as 2001(127)/ELT 411 (Tri.-Delhi), as relied upon by the Ld. DR. It has been held, in the said case, that in terms of Section 129 B(2) of the Customs Act to rectify the mistake, not only it should be a mistake but should be such as is apparent on record. The process of argument cannot be said to be a mistake. Chennai bench of this Tribunal in the case M/s. International Seaport Dredging Ltd. vs. Co....