Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (3) TMI 230

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cts beyond the scope of SCN amounts to re-appreciation of the Tribunal’s order and the Tribunal has not empowered to review its order making a long drawn exercise to ascertain the error if any which is not intention of law relating to rectification of mistake. In the guise of MA (ROM), appellant requires the Tribunal to review its own order to accommodate the present applications, which is not the power conferred on the Tribunal. In this regard we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Airport Authority of India Vs. Commr.(2015 (11) TMI 135 - SUPREME COURT ), Hon’ble High Court decision in the case of Unworth Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur (CG) (2014 (10) TMI 185 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT ) and the Tribunal’s decision in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2/7/2014, 23/09/14, where the Ld. Counsel sought for time and again it was listed on 15/4/2015 and the Ld. Counsel again sought adjournment. Again it was listed on 27/4/15 and the Ld. Counsel prayed for extension to get instructions from his client as to which application shall be pursued before the Tribunal. Again it was listed on 11/6/15, 1/7/15, 10/8/15 and on all these occasions, the Ld. Advocate vide letter sought for adjournment and again the case was listed on 14/10/15, 15/10/15 and on that day also Ld. Counsel sought for adjournment as they received the copies of SCN on that day from the Revenue. Again it was listed on 23/11/15, the Ld. Counsel sought adjournment vide letter dated 23.11.15 and it was posted on 7/12/15. On this occa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Therefore, these facts are clear mistake and the appellate authority has examined this issue and allowed their appeal in their fabour as these are bought out items and this mistake is apparent on record. Therefore, he pleaded for rectification of this mistake. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. AR vehemently opposes both applications for restoration of appeals and applications for rectification of mistake, though the respondent was not present on the date of hearing, Tribunal heard the matter extensively and examined the matter and passed a detailed order on merits on each of the issues taking into the Revenue s grounds of appeal as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) findings. He also submits that out of many issues raised in the Revenue appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pect of ROA applications filed by the respondents, their main ground is that the Ld. Counsel sought for adjournment on the date of 04.04.13 on the date of hearing of the Revenue appeal before the Tribunal, as he had to appear for hearing in the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka and contends that instead of giving one more chance the appeal was heard ex-parte and order passed on merits. We find that this Tribunal in its Final Order recorded the fact that they requested for adjournment on that date, the reasons for not giving further adjournment has also been recorded in the final order that the appeal was listed on several occasions on the request of the Ld. Counsel and held that since the appeals were filed in the year 2004 and yet to be hear .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e present case, we find that the Tribunal has given its detailed findings and held in favour of the respondents except acoustic enclosures. Therefore, the citation relied by the respondents are clearly distinguishable and we do not find any merit in the applications filed by respondents for restoration of appeals. Accordingly, all the three ROA applications are dismissed. 7. As regards ROM applications, we find that there is no apparent mistake on records and respondent s plea for rectification of certain facts beyond the scope of SCN amounts to re-appreciation of the Tribunal s order and the Tribunal has not empowered to review its order making a long drawn exercise to ascertain the error if any which is not intention of law relating to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates