9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (10) TMI 168 - AT - Central ExciseROM application - Tribunal has clearly held that conversion of electric crane into hydraulic on replacement of certain parts would not amount to manufacture & held that the duty is not sustainable - typographical mistake in the Order - instead of setting aside the duty demand of Rs. 15,00,000/- the amount shown in the is Rs. 5,00,000/-. - no reason for revenue to demand the remaining 10,00,000/- Rs. ignoring the delay in filing the ROM application, we allow the same
Issues: Rectification of Mistake application for typographical error in duty demand amount and delay in filing the application.
In this case, the applicant filed a Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application concerning a Final Order passed by the Tribunal. The issue revolved around a typographical error in the duty demand amount mentioned in the order. The Tribunal had earlier held that a specific process did not amount to manufacture, but mistakenly stated the duty demand as Rs. 5,00,000 instead of Rs. 15,00,000. The applicant argued that this mistake, apparent on the face of the record, needed rectification as the Revenue Authorities were attempting to recover the balance of Rs. 10,00,000 based on the incorrect amount mentioned in the order. The Departmental Representative highlighted the delay in filing the ROM application, pointing out that it was filed over three months after the Final Order was issued. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal reaffirmed its earlier decision that the process in question did not amount to manufacture, thus the duty demand could not be sustained. The Tribunal acknowledged the typographical error in stating the duty demand as Rs. 5,00,000 instead of Rs. 15,00,000 in the order. Despite the delay in filing the ROM application, the Tribunal decided to rectify the mistake, confirming that the correct amount to be set aside was Rs. 15,00,000. The Tribunal emphasized that the technicalities should be ignored in this situation, and the ROM application was allowed. The judgment was pronounced and dictated in open court on 30-10-2007.
|
