9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (11) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order No. C-9/1984 dated 9-1-1984 [1984 (16) E.L.T. 546 (Tribunal)] passed by Special Bench 'C' of this Tribunal in Appeal No. ED (SB) (T) A.No. 269/1979-C. 2. The facts of the case, very briefly stated, are that the applicants are manufacturers of paper and paper board which is an excisable item since long. The Finance Bill of 1978 imposed with effect from 1-3-1978, special excise duty on all excisable goods at the rate of 120th of the duty of excise chargeable under the First Schedule to the Act read with any notification in relation to such duty for the time being in force. The applicants had, as at the midnight on 28-2-1978/1-3-1978 certain quantities of paper and paper board in a fully manufactured condition. They cleared these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Supreme Court against Order No. C-9/1984 dated 9-1-1984 dismissing the appeal. The appeal before the Supreme Court is said to be still pending. 5. It is submitted in the present application that though the applicant's contention that special excise duty could not be levied and collected on goods manufactured before 28-2-1978 but cleared after this date, was rejected by the aforesaid Order No. C-9/1984 dated 9-1-1984 [1984 (16) E.L.T. 546 (Tribunal)], this very issue had later come up before a Five Member Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Company v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad-1985 (21) E.L.T. 757 (Tribunal) - 1985 E.C.R. 822 (CEGAT). It is stated that the Five Member Bench, by a majo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal is only to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. The scope of this power came in for detailed consideration by this Tribunal in Entremonde Polycoaters Private Ltd., Nasik v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune [1984 (18) E.L.T. 310 (Tribunal)]. It was held that a mistake apparent from the record should not take detailed arguments to unravel. It should be a mistake that becomes obvious from a reading of the record of the proceedings. The provision enabling rectification of a mistake apparent from the record cannot be construed so as to enable a review of the earlier decision. 9. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, it is clear that what the applicants want this Tribunal to do now is to review ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f a subsequent amendment made by an Amendment Act when the Amendment Act was intended to act retrospectively. The Court observed that prima facie it might appear somewhat strange that an order which was good and valid when it was made, should be treated as patently invalid and wrong by virtue of the retrospective operation of the Amendment Act. But such a result was necessarily involved in the legal question about the retrospective operation of the Amendment Act. It was in this context that the Court held that the order in question was inconsistent with the provisions of the Amendment Act and must be deemed to suffer from a mistake apparent from the record. In the case before us, the facts are not similar. The Finance Bill of 1978 did not, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
