9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d them to pay the amount of duty without extending the benefit of Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs; that after hearing the matters the order was reserved by the Tribunal; that on 28-3-1999 he brought to the notice of the Tribunal a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. J.K. Cotton Spg. Wvg. Mills, 1998 (99) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.) = 1998 (75) ECR 473, which has not been taken into consideration along with other decisions relied upon during the course of the hearing by the applicants. He relied upon the decision in the case of Laxmi Tobacco Co. v. CCE, Raipur, 2000 (115) E.L.T. 122 (Tribunal) = 2000 (38) RLT 59 (CEGAT), wherein it was held that non-consideration of judicial precedence cited before the Tribunal while passing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-appeal No. 15-16/93 dated 13-1-1993 the Collector (Appeals) had directed them to file their Modvat claim for the past period, if any, duly supported by duty paying documents and other relevant records regarding receipt and consumption of the eligible Modvat inputs and ordered that the Asstt. Collector should allow the Modvat, if otherwise admissible, and adjust it against the duty payable; that accordingly the issue of allowing the Modvat credit was not before the Appellate Tribunal while deciding their appeals. The Asst. Collector had disallowed the Modvat credit and they had filed an appeal and the matter was remanded to the Asstt. Collector vide order-in-appeal No. 29-30/94 dated 13-1-1994 with the direction to the Asstt. Collector to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application under Section 35C(2) cannot be filed on the ground that a decision in a particular case has been wrongly interpreted by the Tribunal. An application for rectification of mistake lies only for patent mistake i.e. in a case where the mistake stares one in the face and there could be reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dinker Khindria v. CCE, New Delhi, 2000 (118) E.L.T. 77 (T-LB) = 2000 (38) RLT 442, has held that a decision on a debatable point of law or facts is not a mistake apparent from the record and the debatable issue could not be the subject of an order of rectification. Rectification of mistake does not envisage the rectification of an alleged error of judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
