U.S. Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

U.S. Enterprises vs Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Dec 30, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/41327

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/41327
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, Vice-, S T S.S.
Decided On: Dec 30, 2005
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

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

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

U.S. Enterprises

Respondent

Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus.

Excerpt

1. according to the applicant herein, who is a cha, the error apparent on record arises in the tribunal's final order no. a/441, 442/wzb/05/c-i, dated 26-10-2005 inasmuch as the order only records the finding regarding other appellant viz., rio tinto india pvt. ltd. (importer) and no finding has been recorded on the pleas raised by the us enterprises against the imposition of penalty of rs. 1 lakh upon them by the adjudicating authority, whose order is challenged in appeal no. c/152/05. ld. consultant for the applicant takes us through the order of the tribunal to support his contention and to substantiate his plea that all the findings recorded therein relates only to the importer and there is no finding at all in respect of the applicant herein, who is a cha.2. the prayer for rectification of mistake is opposed by the id. sdr, who draws our attention in para 1 of the order, wherein the bench has recorded that neither appellant disputed that the goods in question which were imported under ata garnet were not intended for display or demonstration or for use in connection with the display of foreign products as mentioned in notification no. 157/90-cus. as amended and submits that this would clearly establish that the bench had considered both the appeals and recorded its findings in respect of both the appellants.3. we have carefully considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the entire order and in particular, para 2 thereof. the entire finding in para 2 clearly relates only to the importer and there is no separate finding recorded in respect of the cha. we, therefore, accept the prayer for rectification and allow the application by holding that the mistake arises in not recording any finding at all in respect of the applicants herein, who is a cha. the appeal of the cha no. 152/05 is fixed for hearing on 30th january, 2006.

Full Judgment

1. According to the applicant herein, who is a CHA, the error apparent on record arises in the Tribunal's Final Order No. A/441, 442/WZB/05/C-I, dated 26-10-2005 inasmuch as the order only records the finding regarding other appellant viz., Rio Tinto India Pvt. Ltd. (importer) and no finding has been recorded on the pleas raised by the US Enterprises against the imposition of penalty of Rs. 1 lakh upon them by the adjudicating authority, whose order is challenged in Appeal No. C/152/05. Ld. Consultant for the applicant takes us through the order of the Tribunal to support his contention and to substantiate his plea that all the findings recorded therein relates only to the importer and there is no finding at all in respect of the applicant herein, who is a CHA.2. The prayer for rectification of mistake is opposed by the Id. SDR, who draws our attention in Para 1 of the order, wherein the Bench has recorded that neither appellant disputed that the goods in question which were imported under ATA Garnet were not intended for display or demonstration or for use in connection with the display of foreign products as mentioned in Notification No. 157/90-Cus. as amended and submits that this would clearly establish that the Bench had considered both the appeals and recorded its findings in respect of both the appellants.

3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the entire order and in particular, Para 2 thereof. The entire finding in Para 2 clearly relates only to the importer and there is no separate finding recorded in respect of the CHA. We, therefore, accept the prayer for rectification and allow the application by holding that the mistake arises in not recording any finding at all in respect of the applicants herein, who is a CHA. The appeal of the CHA No. 152/05 is fixed for hearing on 30th January, 2006.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties U.S. Enterprises vs Commissioner of C. Ex. and Cus. Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge J Balasundaram, Vice-, S T S.S.