9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 205 - AT - Central ExciseRectification of mistake - time limitation - whether the application for rectification of mistake is barred by limitation or not? - Held that - the said issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Haryana Acrylic Mfg. Company Pvt. Limited 2018 (3) TMI 170 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH , where relying in the case of Sunitadevi Singhania Hospital Trust 2008 (11) TMI 249 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , it was held that the limitation will be applicable to the Tribunal for taking suo-moto action for rectification of mistake but the aggrieved party can file an application for rectification of mistake at any time but showing the reasons for causing delay that there has been injustice done to them by the order of this Tribunal - Application for rectification of mistake cannot be dismissed merely on the ground of limitation. There was apparent mistake on record while drafting order wherein the truck number HR-38M-2282 transported the goods to M/s. Airvision India Pvt. Limited, Bahadurgarh instead of M/s. Novice Polymers, Bahadurgarh. Therefore, the final order of this Tribunal is required to be rectified - the matter is required to be relisted to hear the parties on the said limited issue. Application for ROM allowed.
Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the Final Order regarding partial Cenvat credit denial to M/s. Novice Polymers and full credit to M/s. Airvision India Pvt. Limited; whether the rectification application is time-barred. Analysis: 1. The Revenue filed an application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order dated 24.08.2016, where partial Cenvat credit was denied to M/s. Novice Polymers and full credit was allowed to M/s. Airvision India Pvt. Limited. The Tribunal observed an apparent mistake in denying credit to the wrong party due to a misinterpretation of the truck number on the invoices. It was clarified that the truck was used to transport goods to M/s. Airvision India Pvt. Limited and not to M/s. Novice Polymers. Therefore, rectification of the mistake in the final order was deemed necessary. 2. The issue of whether the application for rectification of mistake was time-barred was raised by the appellant's counsel, arguing that it was filed beyond six months of the Tribunal's original order. However, the Tribunal referred to a previous case involving Haryana Acrylic Mfg. Company Pvt. Limited, where the issue of limitation was discussed. Citing a judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was clarified that the limitation period does not apply to applications filed by aggrieved parties for rectification. Following this precedent, the Tribunal held that the rectification application cannot be dismissed solely on the grounds of limitation. 3. Considering the legal principles and precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the rectification of the mistake in the final order was warranted. The order incorrectly attributed the truck's transportation to M/s. Airvision India Pvt. Limited instead of M/s. Novice Polymers. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to entertain the application for rectification of mistake and relist the matter for further hearing on the specific issue identified. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the application for rectification of mistake, acknowledging the need to correct the error in the final order regarding the allocation of Cenvat credit. The appeal was scheduled for a final hearing to address the rectified issue and ensure justice between the parties involved.
|
