9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (2) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te-bags - whether under T.I. 22A as contended by the applicants/appellants or under T.I. 68 as held by the Department. The Tribunal upheld classification under T.I. 68 following the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Dalhousie Jute Co. Ltd. [AIR 1970 Cal. 497] which was followed by the Tribunal in the cases of Birla Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd. [1986 (26) E.L.T. 1032], Shriram Jute Mills Ltd. [1986 (23) E.L.T. 446] and Innes Watson Co. [1987 (9) ETR 363]. The applicants submit that the Tribunal has wrongly observed that T.I. 22A was amended in 1972 as it was substituted, not amended, in 1972 and by the substitution, 2 exceptions were carved out in respect of jute manufactures containing jute and wool and those in which the weight of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istake which is sought to be rectified in an order of the Tribunal must be one which is apparent on the face of the record and not one which is required to be established by a long drawn out process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be more than one opinion. It is also a well-settled proposition of law that the power of review of its own order is not inherent in any authority. Such power has to be conferred explicitly by the statute. CEGAT indisputably has no power of reviewing its orders. 5. The question here is whether the view taken by the Tribunal in Order No. 902/87-D, dated 16-11-1987 based on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Dalhousie Jute Co. Ltd. AIR 1970 Calcutta 497 - can be said to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the Bench had proceeded on a mistaken impression (mistaken, suit turns out to be) that there was no judgment of any High Court on the classification of the goods in question other than that of the Calcutta High Court. To that extent, it may be said that there was a mistake although it might be somewhat difficult to say that it was a mistake apparent on the face of the record as it existed at the time of the hearing or at the time of making the final order. 6. However, the matter is not so simple. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the scope of the power of the ITAT to rectify mistakes in its orders. In Venkatachalam v. Bombay Dyeing Manufacturing Co. Ltd. -1958 (34) ETR 143, the question for decision was whether an order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s) sought to distinguish the facts of the case from those in the Venkatachalam case (supra) by submitting that while the order made by the ITO in the Venkatachalam case was rendered mistaken by a subsequent enactment, the order in the Walchand Nagar Industries case, which was a good order, was rendered bad as a consequence of a subsequent judicial pronouncement. The Court negatived this contention by stating as follows :- The effect of the decision of their Lordship of the Supreme Court is that the levy of excess dividend tax was, at no time, good. The levy was invalid, and that being the true legal position, the order made by the Income Tax Officer was bad at its inception on the date it was made, and that was a mistake; to point out th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
