9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 206 - AT - Central ExciseRectification of Mistake - error apparent on the face of record - HELD THAT - There are any errors apparent on the face of record. The errors which require long drawn process of argument and considerable time to bring out the nature of the error cannot be said to be error apparent on the face of record. In the circumstances, it can be interpreted that the Apex Court has not deviated from its earlier ratio laid down in GENERAL ENGINEERING WORKS VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., JAIPUR 2005 (3) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA since the decision in COMMISSIONER VERSUS MAHENDRA UGINE STEEL CO. LTD. 2006 (1) TMI 638 - SUPREME COURT , the Apex Court has only remanded the matter for reconsideration by the Tribunal. The contention of the appellant that decision in M/s. M/s. Mahendra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd., has to be applied would be redo or review of the order, which the law does not allow. There is no error on the face of record, which requires rectification - ROM application is dismissed.
Issues:
1. Rectification of errors in the final order passed by the Tribunal. 2. Reliance on previous court decisions regarding the issue. 3. Dispute over the limitation of the demand. 4. Request for remand based on Cost Accountant's report. 5. Comparison of decisions in similar cases. 6. Argument against reconsideration of limitation issue and penalties. Analysis: 1. The appellant filed a ROM application seeking rectification of errors in the final order passed by the Tribunal. The appellant argued that the Tribunal relied on a previous Supreme Court decision in a similar case, but the appellant presented a Cost Accountant's report for consideration. The appellant requested a remand to the adjudicating authority based on this report. 2. The appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in concluding that the demand was not time-barred. The appellant cited a favorable decision in a sister concern's case where the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in their favor. However, the Tribunal dismissed the department's appeal without the order being presented during the hearing. The Tribunal justified its decision by following the Supreme Court's ruling in a related case, emphasizing that the law applied was consistent with the facts presented. 3. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument for reconsideration of the limitation issue and waiver of penalties. The Tribunal maintained that there was no error apparent on the face of the record requiring rectification. The Tribunal emphasized that the decision was based on the law laid down by the Supreme Court and did not find merit in the appellant's plea for a remand or a different interpretation of the law. 4. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant's request for a remand based on the Cost Accountant's report was not justified as the law applied by the Tribunal was consistent with the Supreme Court's decision. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant did not dispute the applicability of the law to the case at hand, and therefore, a remand was unnecessary. 5. The Tribunal compared the decisions in similar cases involving the appellant's sister concern and emphasized that the law applied by the Tribunal was in line with the Supreme Court's rulings. The Tribunal clarified that the appellant's plea to apply a different decision would amount to a review or redo of the order, which was not permissible under the law. 6. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's arguments regarding the limitation issue and penalties, maintaining that the decision was not erroneous. The Tribunal concluded that there was no error on the face of the record that warranted rectification, and thus, the ROM application was dismissed.
|
