9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (8) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the Hon ble Supreme Court. The Hon ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 15th September, 1988 has disposed of the appeals vide Civil Appeal Nos. 2760-2761/88. The Supreme Court s order is reproduced below :- The contention before us is that the Customs and Excise, Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi should have considered the point that the show cause notice served on the appellant was barred by time. The point may be raised before the said Appellate Tribunal by way of review and we need not entertain it at this stage. With this observation the appeals are rejected. To enable the appellant to apply to the Appellate Tribunal in that behalf we stay the recovery proceedings for a period of three weeks from today. 2. The appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... March, 1982 and the period involved 21st November, 1979 to 31st March, 1980 and the show cause notice was issued under Section 11A of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944. He has pleaded that since there was no allegation of fraud, collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. He has relied on the following judgments :- (1) 1986 (25) E.L.T. 1026 - Rajen (Textile) Mills (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune. (2) 1984 (17) E.L.T. 499 - Basant Pran Electric Co., Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. (3) 1987 E.L.T. 334 -Agarwal Brothers Steel Rolling Mills, Bangatore v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore. (4) 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1927 - Sriram Pistons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 35C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 reproduced below :- 35-C. Orders of Appellate Tribunal - (1) The Appellate Tribunal may after giving the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass, such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the decision or order appealed against or may refer the case back to the authority which passed such decision or order with such directions as the Appellate Tribunal may think fit for a fresh adjudication or decision, as the case may be, after taking additional evidence, if necessary. (2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Income-Tax Officer: The wording of the sub-section (2) of Section 254 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and sub-section (2) of Section 35-C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 pari materia is the same, and as such the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Shew Paper Exchange v. Income-Tax Officer, C Ward, Calcutta reported in 1983 I.T.R. 186 is fully applicable to this case. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Tribunal has got no power to review its own order. The request of the applicant for the reviewing of the order is rejected. Now c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilure of the assessee to urge that ground or due to a lapse on the part of the Tribunal deserving rectification was a matter entirely for the authorities under the taxation statutes. 6. Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Stadmed Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal reported in 140 I.T.R. 361 had held that (relevant parts from the judgments are reproduced below) :- A mistake apparent from the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. If there are two views and the mistake is required to be substantiated by lengthy arguments and by placing reliance on decisions, it will no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffect that the appellant had no claim at all was arrived at by this court only on the basis of the notion that the other persons i.e., Biswarajan Maity and Mrinal Kanti Maity had not challenged the order in any way. The learned advocate as well as the S.D.R. had admitted that both of them had never argued the same before this court." Court has inherent powers to rectify mistakes. Undoubtedly this court has inherent powers in view of the Supreme Court s Judgment in the Case of I.T.O. v. Muhammad Kunhi (71 I.T.R. 815) and Puran Mal Kantia v. I.T.O. (98 ITR 39) ..Jagdambika Pratap v. I.T.O. (76 ITR 619) that the Tribunal has inherent jurisdiction to rectify a wrong committed by itself when that wrong cause prejudice to an innocent party ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
