9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em should be explored, if advised to do so. We find that by these applications, Revenue is trying to reargue the entire cases which cannot be permitted as has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of RDC Concrete (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2011 (8) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) wherein their Lordships have specifically settled the law which is rectification of mistake cannot be done by re-appreciation of evidence. Since the entire case in final order dated 12-12-2013 was decided on the basis of the legal provisions existing during the material period, and the judicial pronouncement of the Co-ordinate Bench on the same issue was followed and it was held that prior to 1-3-2008, RSP could not be re-determined - though the demand for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken in the applications for the rectification of mistakes and also through the said case laws. He would also take us through the provisions of Section 4A as it stood prior to 14-5-2003 and post 14-5-2003 and submit that there was always a provision for redetermination of RSP . It is his submission that there is a mistake apparent on the record as regards factual matrix and take us through the Paragraph 3.1 onwards in the application for rectification of mistakes, and submit that the factual matrix clearly indicates that there were statements which indicate that the ex-factory rates of the tiles cleared were infact incorrect. It is his submission that in this another mistake apparent from the record is pertaining to drawing of adverse inf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chapter VIII of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was also submitted that the view expressed by the Bench was based upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Gulam Mohammad and Anr. as is indicated in Paragraph 12 of the order dated 12-12-2013. He would submit that the observations recorded on the factual matrix were only in respect of proceedings before the Bench. 4. We have considered submissions made at length by both sides and perused the applications for rectification of mistakes and also grounds taken in the said applications. We have also perused our Final Order Nos. A/11683-11693/2013, dated 12-12-2013. 5. We find that the applications filed by the Revenue for rectification of mistakes in our order dated 12-12-2013 needs t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are contrary to the view which has been expressed is incorrect, inasmuch as, the period involved in all the three decisions as stated by the Revenue and relied upon was prior to 14-5-2003 when the amendment to the provisions of Section 4A took place. We find that by making such an observation, Tribunal was only stating the correct legal position which was in the case of M/s. Millennium Appliances Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (248) E.L.T. 713 (Tri.-Bang.)] and M/s. ABB Ltd. [2011 (272) E.L.T. 706 (Tri.-Bang.)] and the facts in the cases in hand. 7. Thirdly, in our view, since the entire case in final order dated 12-12-2013 was decided on the basis of the legal provisions existing during the material period, and the judicial pronouncement of the Co-or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
