9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iling the application for rectification of the mistake on the ground that the Tribunal is not vested with the power to condone the delay. 2. The appeal No. E/161/07 was disposed of by the Tribunal on merits by an order dated 21-8-2007 allowing the appeal of the assessee. The revenue preferred a miscellaneous application for rectification of mistake under the provisions of Section 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short hereinafter referred to as "Act") on 10-12-2008 for rectifying the mistake. It is. apparent on the face of the record that the mistake pointed out was the decision relied on by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Godavari Sugar Mills Limited v. CCE, Belgaum, reported in 2007 (212) E.L.T. 234 (Tri.-Bang.) wherein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the mistake filed belatedly and thus the application for condonation of delay and consequently the application for rectification of mistake were dismissed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the revenue has preferred this appeal. 3. Section 35C(2) of the Act reads as under :- "The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within (6 months) from the date of order with a view of rectifying any mistake apparent from the record amend any order passed by it under Sub-Section (1) and shall make such amendments if the mistake is brought to its notice by the (Commissioner of Central Excise) or the other party to the appeal." 4. A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the power is conferred on the Appellate Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. The nature of the remedy provided therein, are such that the legislature intended it to be a complete Code by itself which, alone should govern the several matters provided by it. If, on an examination of the relevant provisions, it is clear that the provisions of the Limitation Act are necessarily excluded, then the benefits conferred therein cannot be called in aid to supplement the provisions of the Act. In our considered view, that even in a case where the special law does not exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act by an express reference, it would nonetheless be open to the Court to examine whether and to what extent, the nature of those provisions or the nature of the subject-matter and scheme of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
