Page 195 - ELT_15th August 2020_Vol 373_Part 4

2020 ] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV.), LUCKNOW v. SANDEEP AGARWAL 529

2020 (373) E.L.T. 529 (Tri. - All.)
IN THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, ALLAHABAD
[COURT NO. I]
Shri Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (T)
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREV.), LUCKNOW
Versus
SANDEEP AGARWAL
Misc. Order No. MO/70361/2019-SM(BR), dated 9-12-2019 in Application
No. C/ROM/70210/2019 in Appeal No. C/71268/2018
Rectification of Mistake - Error Apparent on record - Five different
Bills of Entry were involved in decision rendered by Tribunal dismissing Rev-
enue’s single appeal on the ground of monetary limitation - Revenue ought to
have filed five appeals against one - Since amount of demand in each Bill of
Entry was much less than value limit prescribed for filing appeal to Tribunal,
dismissal of appeal is in order - There being no error apparent, ROM applica-
tion not sustainable - Section 129B of Customs Act, 1962. [para 2]
Application dismissed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Anupam Kumar Tiwari, Authorised
Representative, for the Appellant.
Shri Anil Kumar Dixit, Advocate, for the
Respondent.
[Order]. - I have heard the Miscellaneous Application. The contention of
Revenue is that the instructions issued by CBEC were applicable to the cases
where duty dispute was less than Rs. 10 lakhs if the dispute was in respect of
Customs duty. They have submitted that in the instant case duty involved was
more than Rs. 10 lakhs and therefore there was mistake apparent on the part of
this Tribunal in passing the said Final Order No. 70006-70007/2019, dated
4-1-2019.
2. I have heard Shri Anupam Kumar Tiwari Learned Superintendent
on behalf of Revenue and Shri Anil Kumar Dixit Learned Advocate on behalf of
respondent and perused the record. From the record, I note that the demand was
raised in respect of bill of entry dated 22-9-2014 to the tune of around Rs. 2.4
lakhs. Further demand of Customs duty of around Rs. 4.8 lakhs was in respect of
bill of entry dated 11-11-2013. Demand of Customs duty of around Rs. 1.5 lakhs
was in respect of bill of entry dated 11-6-2014. Demand of Customs duty of
around Rs. 3.1 lakhs was in respect of bill of entry dated 11-6-2014 and demand
of Customs duty of around Rs. 2.3 lakhs was in respect of bill of entry dated 23-7-
2014. Sine Five different bills of entry were involved Revenue should have filed
five different appeals before this Tribunal however they filed only one Appeal
Bearing No. C/71268/2018. Therefore the said appeal was treated to be appeal
against only one bill of entry. It was also noted that in none of the consignment
covered by any bill of entry demand of Customs duty was more than Rs. 10
lakhs. Therefore there was no mistake apparent on the part of this Tribunal in
passing the said Final Order No. 70006-70007/2019, dated 4-1-2019. Therefore the
present ROM is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
_______
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th August 2020  195