9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aning thereby that the goods in question are for fabrication/manufacture of furniture. In these circumstances a finding is arrived at that the goods are not for retail sale. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Ashok Textiles reported in [1960 (12) TMI 14 - SUPREME Court] held that if a statutory provision is capable of two interpretation, taking one such interpretation cannot give rise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we directed the Deputy Registrar to look into the matter and report who issued the order without listing it for pronouncement and fixing the responsibility. 3. As the order has already been issued on 10-4-2014, therefore the date of order is to be considered as 10-4-2014. 4. Applicant also submitted that there is a mistake apparent on record in the final order which requires rectification. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Entry which is on record specifically mentioning that the goods in question are of hardware for furniture fittings. It is also submitted that the applicants seek to review of the order in the guise of rectification of mistake application and the Tribunal has no power to review. 6. We find that the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CCE v. NTB International Pvt. Ltd. (supra) held that rect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion is capable of two interpretation, taking one such interpretation cannot give rise to an error apparent from the record even if one is of the view that the other interpretation is more correct in the context. 8. In view of the facts which are on record, a view has been taken therefore it cannot be considered as a mistake apparent on record which is obvious and self-evident. Hence we find no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
