GOVIND PUROHIT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE ROM has been filed by the Revenue. The single Member Shri G.A. Brahma Deva, since retired, has passed the Final Order No. 1172/2003, dated 2 -9 -2003. He had found that the seized goods were not smuggled ones and they were not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act and hence by applying the ratio of the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of Ravi Mittal v. CC [2000 (117) E.L.T. 182 (T) = 1999 (32) RLT 709], has allowed the appeal. The Revenue has filed this ROM application stating that Sl. Nos. 86 to 97 and Sl. Nos. 166 to 171 are notified. The Revenue contends that notified goods i.e. Electronic Calculators were valued at Rs. 18,700/ - and Digital Diaries which function as Calculators were valued at Rs. 36,650/ -. Therefore, the Tribunal should have upheld the confiscation and should have imposed fine and penalty.

(2.) HEARD both sides in the matter.

(3.) ON a careful consideration, I notice that the Tribunal, besides holding that the items are not notified ones, has also entered into another finding that the goods are not smuggled ones and the Department has not discharged its burden. There is no ground taken up by the Revenue in the ROM regarding this finding. I am of the considered opinion that no mistake arises for the purpose of recall of the order for re -hearing. The mistake should be apparent on record in the nature of arithmetical mistake for the purpose of rectification as held by the Larger Bench in the case of Dinakar Khindria v. CC, New Delhi - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 77 (Tribunal -LB). The Revenue can file an appeal against the order. As the grounds taken up are against the merit of the order, there is no merit in the ROM and the same is rejected.