9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 810 - AT - Central ExciseRectification of Mistake - in the case title framed in the miscellaneous order dated 03/08/2018, the respondent is shown as Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur I . It is submitted that the correct respondent is to be shown as Central Excise & CGST Commissionerate, Alwar . Held that - The appeal was filed by M/s KEI Industries and at the relevant time, the jurisdiction of the appellant was within the Commissionerate of Central Excise, Jaipur I. The miscellaneous order dated 03/08/2018 has also reflected the respondent as Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur I . During the period of dispute, the jurisdiction was that of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. The CGST Commissionerate was formed on a subsequent dated in 2017. There is no mistake in the miscellaneous order dated 03/08/2018 - ROM application dismissed.
Issues: Rectification of mistake in the order
Analysis: The judgment pertains to a miscellaneous application for the rectification of a mistake in a previous order. The Revenue filed the application seeking correction of certain errors in the order dated 03/08/2018, where the Tribunal had dismissed the appellant's application for rectification of mistakes claimed in the final order dated 14/06/2016. The main contention was regarding the respondent mentioned in the case title, which was stated as "Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur - I" instead of the correct entity, "Central Excise & CGST Commissionerate, Alwar." The Tribunal considered the jurisdiction during the relevant period when the appeal was filed by M/s KEI Industries. It was noted that at that time, the jurisdiction fell under the Commissionerate of Central Excise, Jaipur - I, and not the CGST Commissionerate, Alwar, as contended by the Revenue. The formation of the CGST Commissionerate occurred at a later date in 2017. Therefore, the Tribunal found no error in the order dated 03/08/2018 and subsequently dismissed the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue. In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the jurisdictional aspect and upholds the correctness of the previous order, emphasizing that the mention of the respondent as "Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur - I" was appropriate based on the jurisdictional framework at the time of the dispute.
|
