VIKASH CHANDRA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (SEA)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These applications were filed by the assessee seeking rectification of what is said to be a "mistake apparent from the record" in Final Order No. 702 and 703/2003, dated 9 -9 -2003 [2003 (158) E.L.T. 316 (T)] passed by this Bench in Appeal Nos. C/123 and 124/2002.

(2.) We have carefully read our final order and examined the grounds stated in the present applications. We have also heard both sides.

(3.) The above appeals had challenged, inter alia, a demand of duty of Rs. 16,73,368/ -. This demand was based on classification of the subject goods (imported by the assessee), as components under various entries in the Customs Tariff vis -a -vis the classification, by the assessee, of all the components together as one item under a particular tariff entry. The individual classification of the imported components, proposed by the department in the relevant show cause notice, was affirmed by the Commissioner and the same was also upheld by us in our final order. The present applications state that, while confirming the demand of duty on the consignment, the excess duty paid in respect of some of the components was not adjusted. Such excess payments amount to Rs. 2,78,009/ -. It is the above omission that is pointed out as mistake in our final order. This omission which has been explained to us by the Counsel is conceded by the SDR. We are also convinced that the final order did not take into account the appellants' specific plea that the duty paid in excess on some of the items as classified by the Commissioner should be taken into account while finalising the quantum of demand on the consignment. This is a patent mistake that needs to be rectified. No other mistake has been pointed out by the Counsel,