COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE-I Vs. WIPRO LTD. (INFO TECH GROUP)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order passed by the CESTAT under Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, rectifying the mistake of levying of interest. The assessee imported various components during the year 1994-95. The assessee claimed exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 96/93-Cus., dated 2-3-1993. The assessee did not produce any documentary evidence showing that they have used the aforesaid components in manufacturing of certain items and the same have been exported. Therefore, proceedings were initiated against the assessee claiming duty foregone. After hearing the assessee, the demand was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. Appeal preferred against the said order before the Commissioner (Appeals) came to be dismissed. The appeal to the Tribunal also met with the same fate. It is thereafter an application is filed under Section 129B(2) of the Act for rectification of the mistake apparent from the record in respect to the final order dated 31-7-2007. The mistake that was pointed out was that the Notification No. 96/93 did not enable the revenue for payment of any interest in terms of the duty foregone under the said notification. Nor is there any provision under the Customs Act during the period in question for the payment of any interest in terms of the duty foregone in notification No. 96/93. Therefore, the levy of interest as confirmed by the Tribunal is an error which is apparent on the face of the record and needs to be rectified. Accepting of the case of the assessee, the Tribunal passed the impugned order deleting the interest portion. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue is in appeal.

(2.) The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law :

(3.) The learned Counsel for the revenue assailing the impugned order commanded that the Tribunal has virtually reappreciated the entire material on record and has passed the order contrary to the original order which is not permissible while exercising the power under Section 129B(2) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order requires to be set aside.