2018 (8) TMI 1085 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - transfer of credit on Capital goods - Held that - This Tribunal has passed the order only on the concession made by ld. Counsel that the appellant will reverse the credit taken by Lambha Unit and will avail by Odhav Unit, but at the relevant time the Lambha Unit was not in operation. Therefore, the explanation given by ld. Counsel was not factually correct - ROM Application allowed.

Issues: Rectification of mistake in the order dated 01.02.2017

The judgment deals with an application for the rectification of a mistake in an order dated 01.02.2017. The applicant argued that the order was based on incorrect facts presented by the Counsel during the hearing. The Counsel had accepted that the credit of capital goods availed by one unit could be reversed and taken by another unit, but the first unit was not operational at the time. The Revenue argued that the order was based on the submissions made by the Counsel and hence no error existed. The Member (Judicial) analyzed the situation and found that the order was indeed based on incorrect facts presented by the Counsel. Referring to a similar case, the Member decided to recall the order in question. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the rectification of mistake application, recalled the previous order, and restored the appeal to its original number for further hearing on a specified date.

In this case, the primary issue revolved around the rectification of a mistake in an order passed by the Tribunal. The applicant contended that the order was based on incorrect facts presented by the Counsel during the hearing. Specifically, the Counsel had agreed that the credit of capital goods from one unit could be reversed and utilized by another unit. However, it was revealed that the unit from which the credit was to be reversed was not operational at the relevant time, rendering the Counsel's submission factually incorrect. The Revenue, on the other hand, argued that the order was correctly based on the Counsel's submissions and hence no error existed.

Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented by both sides, the Member (Judicial) found merit in the applicant's claim that the order was indeed based on incorrect facts provided by the Counsel during the hearing. Drawing parallels to a similar precedent, the Member noted a case where an order was recalled due to a wrong concession made, leading to the decision to recall the order in question. Citing the precedent and considering the specific circumstances of the present case, the Member concluded that the order passed by the Tribunal was indeed based on incorrect facts presented by the Counsel. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the rectification of mistake application, thereby recalling the previous order dated 01.02.2017 and restoring the appeal to its original number for further proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment centered on the rectification of a mistake in an order issued by the Tribunal, which was found to be based on incorrect facts presented by the Counsel during the hearing. The Member (Judicial) carefully evaluated the arguments put forth by both the applicant and the Revenue, ultimately siding with the applicant's assertion that the order was erroneously premised on inaccurate information provided by the Counsel. By referencing a relevant precedent and considering the specific circumstances of the case, the Member decided to recall the order in question, thereby allowing the rectification of mistake application and setting the stage for the appeal to be reinstated for further hearing on a specified date.

← Previous Next →