Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Optel Telecommunications Ltd. vs C.C.E, Indore on 16 February, 2001
ORDER K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)
1. This ROM Application is filed in respect of Final Order No. A/1973/00-NB(SM) dt. 16.10.2000. Shri P.C. Kashiv, Consultant appearing for the Petitioners submits that the following observation in the impugned order of the CEGAT is factually not correct and this would call for rectification: "The original as well as the Appellate Authority in their respective orders have held that neither the Tariff heading nor the description of the items on which the modvat credit is taken - are tallying with those given in their declaration".
2. The ld. Consultant for the Petitioners submits that in fact in the declaration filed by the Petitioners, the Tariff Heading of the items was not correctly mentioned and for the description of the goods only the entry 'party' was mentioned. On this ground, the ld. Consultant for the Petitioners would argue that there is a mistake in the order of the Tribunal apparent on record which would call for rectification. Shri A.K. Jain, JDR for the respondents submits that there is not mistake and the Tribunal in its order have extracted the findings arrived at by the lower authorities with the remarks that the representative of the Petitioners during the course of hearing of the appeal was not able to counter the same. Therefore, he states that there is no ground to allow this Petition.
3. I have considered these submissions made before me. The part of the order subject matter of the Petition for rectification is already extracted above. In the order of the Tribunal it is also stated that the above observations are made by the lower appellate authority in his order. On perusal of the Order-in-Appeal, it is observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has indeed arrived at the same findings in the Order-in-Appeal dt. 15/17.5.99 are, "I find that this contention of the appellant is not sustainable because what has been held by the Adjudicating officer is that the chapter of sub-heading of the capital goods of which some of the parts, components, accessories etc. were included in the declaration under Rule 57-T was not shown which is a matter of fact and has not been disputed".
4. The ld. Consultant for the Petitioners even during the course of hearing, the present Petition is not disputing the above findings of the lower Appellate Authority. In the result, there is not force in the present ROM Petition and the same is dismissed.
(Announced and dictated in the Court)