9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this conclusion, the Tribunal also relied upon the apex Court's decisions in the case of Pio Food Packers [1980 (5) TMI 30 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] and Empire Industries Ltd. [1985 (5) TMI 215 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. The mistake apparent on record must be obvious and a patent mistake and the mistake should not be such that which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning. Re-appreciation of evidence on a debatable point cannot be said to be rectification of mistake apparent on record. If the mistake is sought to be rectified by long drawn process of reasoning or where two opinions are possible, the same cannot be said to be a mistake apparent from the record attracting the provisions of Section 35C of the Central Excise Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the hon'ble apex Court in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 2008 (221) ELT 11 (SC) in support of this contention. Therefore, it is submitted that these decisions be considered now and a revised order passed. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, submits that while passing the impugned order, the Tribunal has examined the issue at length and after examining the facts, it has come to a specific conclusion that the activity undertaken by the appellant amounted to manufacture . Therefore, there is no error committed by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. The Tribunal cannot re-appreciate the evidence as that would amount to review of order wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same amounted to manufacture or not? It merely held that the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of S.D. Fine Chemicals would apply and, therefore, the Revenue's appeal has no merits. Whereas, in the present case, we have examined at length the various process undertaken, the change that has occurred in the product both in terms of quality and nomenclature and how the product is marketed after undertaking various process. Therefore, there is a world of difference between the order passed in E.Merck Ltd. case and in the present case. The appellant wants us to re-appreciate the evidence by way of ROM application. We are afraid, this argument is not tenable. The hon'ble apex Court in the case of RDC Concrete (India) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
