Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. Vs. Somani Iron and Steels Ltd.

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. vs Somani Iron and Steels Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Feb 15, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/38112

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/38112
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: N T C.N.B.
Decided On: Feb 15, 2005
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex.

Respondent

Somani Iron and Steels Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (2005)(184)ELT201TriDel

Excerpt

.....appeal filed by the appellants against order-in-original no. 2000/dck-ii/seiz/2000 has already been disposed off separately. in the appeal under reference i find that the ld. adjudicating authority has loaded additional liability of duty on the appellants by way of issue of impugned corrigendum to order issued after a period of nearly two years. i also find that substantive changes have been brought out by the corrigendum. instead of issue of such corrigendum, the department should have filed the appeal for such remedial steps, if necessary. the cbec vide circular no. 502/68/99-cx., dated 16-12-1999 provides that "where any significant changes in the order becomes necessary after the order has been issued which cannot be termed as clerical or typographical mistake, proposal for review may be mooted to appropriate authority instead of taking recourse to corrigendum." in the circumstances, i find that the adjudicating authority has acted beyond his power & corrigendum issued is liable to be set-aside. accordingly, i set aside the impugned corrigendum c. no. v(15)337/seiz/k-ii/97, dated 26-10-2001 to the order-in-original no. 200/dck-ii/seiz/2000, dated 30-10-2000 and allow the appeal no. 6-ce/appl/knp/2002 filed by the appellants with consequential relief.2. the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the corrigendum was entirely contrary to legal provisions and also the instructions of central board of excise and customs and there was no error or illegality in the order-in-appeal of the commissioner (appeals) in allowing the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. Perused the records and heard both sides. The Revenue's appeal is directed against the rejection of their appeal by Order-in-Appeal No.49-CE/Appl/Knp/2004, dated 13-2-2004. That Order-in-Appeal was passed against the corrigendum dated 26-10-2001 to the Order-in-Original No.200-DCK-II/Seiz/2000, dated 30-10-2000 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, C.Ex., Division II, Kanpur. The Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations : A personal hearing in the case was held on 20-2-2003 which was attended by Shri Amit Awasthi, Counsel and Shri K.K. Singh, Manager on behalf of the Appellants and submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has no power to review/issue addendum/errata where additional liability is being created. They further submitted that the "impugned case is squarely covered under M/s. Flocks India & Others. They also submitted that to sum up a functus officio cannot reopen the case.

I have carefully, gone through the case records, Appeal filed by the Appellants & records of personal hearing. The instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants against corrigendum dated 26-10-2002 to Order-in-Original No. 200/DCK-II/Seiz/2000 dated 31-10-2000 under which additional liability is loaded on the Appellants. The Appeal filed by the Appellants against Order-in-original No. 2000/DCK-II/Seiz/2000 has already been disposed off separately. In the Appeal under reference I find that the ld. Adjudicating Authority has loaded additional liability of duty on the Appellants by way of issue of impugned corrigendum to Order issued after a period of nearly two years. I also find that substantive changes have been brought out by the corrigendum. Instead of issue of such corrigendum, the department should have filed the Appeal for such remedial steps, if necessary. The CBEC vide circular No. 502/68/99-CX., dated 16-12-1999 provides that "Where any significant changes in the order becomes necessary after the order has been issued which cannot be termed as clerical or typographical mistake, proposal for review may be mooted to appropriate authority instead of taking recourse to corrigendum." In the circumstances, I find that the Adjudicating Authority has acted beyond his power & corrigendum issued is liable to be set-aside.

Accordingly, I set aside the impugned Corrigendum C. No. V(15)337/Seiz/K-II/97, dated 26-10-2001 to the Order-in-original No. 200/DCK-II/SEIZ/2000, dated 30-10-2000 and allow the Appeal No. 6-CE/APPL/KNP/2002 filed by the Appellants with consequential relief.

2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the corrigendum was entirely contrary to legal provisions and also the instructions of Central Board of Excise and Customs and there was no error or illegality in the Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Commissioner of Cus. and C. Ex. vs Somani Iron and Steels Ltd. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge N T C.N.B.