9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 718 - AT - Central ExciseRectification of mistake - Held that - Section 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 provides that the Tribunal may rectify any mistake in order, apparent from the records. On a query from the Bench, the learned Advocate submits that at the time of passing the order, the legal position was against the assessee. It is further submitted that that this issue was challenged before the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Hon ble Supreme Court subsequently decided the issue in favour of the assessee, in the case of Mangalore Refinery & Petrochemicals Limited (2015 (9) TMI 245 - SUPREME COURT ). We find that, at the time of passing the final order, the issue was against the assessee. Hence, we do not find any error in the Final Order passed by the Tribunal. It is not a case that at the time of passing the Final Order, the Tribunal had not considered the decision of the apex court and therefore, the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Hindustan Liver Limited (2006 (8) TMI 9 - CESTAT, MUMBAI ) would not be applicable. In view of the above discussions, we do not find any merit in the application for rectification of mistake
Issues: Application for rectification of mistake in Final Order
In this judgment, the issue revolves around an application for the rectification of a mistake in a Final Order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The applicant sought rectification based on a subsequent decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a related case. The key contention was whether the Tribunal could review its decision in light of the new legal position established by the Supreme Court. Analysis: The applicant filed an application for the rectification of a mistake in the Final Order passed by the Tribunal. The applicant's representative argued that the issue, which was decided against the applicant in the Final Order, had now been settled in favor of the applicant by a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a related case. Reference was made to the doctrine of per-incuriam, emphasizing that non-consideration of a binding precedent like the Supreme Court's decision would constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. The applicant sought to rely on the decision of the Larger Bench in a previous case to support the rectification application. The Revenue's Authorized Representative strongly opposed the rectification, arguing that the Tribunal could not review its decision based on a subsequent Supreme Court decision. It was contended that the legal position at the time of the Tribunal's decision favored the Revenue, and therefore, the Tribunal's decision should stand. After hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal considered the relevant portion of the Final Order in question. It was noted that the issue had been decided against the applicant in the Final Order based on a previous Tribunal decision. The Tribunal then analyzed the provisions of Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, which allow for the rectification of mistakes apparent from the records within a specified time frame. The Tribunal concluded that at the time of passing the Final Order, the legal position was against the applicant, and therefore, there was no error in the Tribunal's decision. It was clarified that the Tribunal had considered the legal position at the time and that the decision of the Larger Bench cited by the applicant was not applicable in this context. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the application for rectification of mistake and rejected it. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the legal position at the time of the decision and clarified the scope of rectification under the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act.
|
