9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r short "the Appellate Tribunal"). 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the Appellate Tribunal decided Appeal Nos. E/1709, 1714, 1790 and 1791 of 1999. Out of the four appeals, the Appeal No. E/1790 of 1999 was preferred by the present appellant. 3. The issue involved in this appeal is as regards alleged wrong availment of Modvat credit on inputs used in manufacture of Aluminum Slugs and Containers falling under Chapter 76 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A Show Cause Notice was issued on 3rd September, 1993 by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay to the appellant calling upon the appellant to Show Cause as to why credit of Modvat taken during the period 1st August, 1988 to 31st January, 1990 on the basis of Subsidiary Gate pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short the said Act). He pointed out the averments made in the application and in particular paragraph 2 thereof in which submissions made by the appellant before the Appellate Tribunal were reproduced and it was contended that the said submissions have not been dealt with. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant invited our attention to the order passed on the rectification application on 17th April, 2006 by which the same was dismissed. He submitted that the rectification application is not decided on merits as the contentions raised therein have not been considered. He submitted that there is no finding recorded by which the submissions which were specifically pointed out in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation, in clause (a) to (e) of paragraph 2, submissions which were allegedly made before the Appellate Tribunal have been reproduced. There is a specific averment that the submissions recorded in the application were made by the applicant and there is an error apparent on the face of the record. 10. We have carefully perused the order dated 17th April, 2006 passed on the rectification application. The issue whether submissions set out in paragraph 2 of the rectification application were made before the Tribunal is not at all considered in the said order dated 17th April, 2006. 11. Law is well settled. When a Court or a Tribunal records that a particular submission was made across the bar, the correctness of the recording as to what trans ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an error by not considering the specific case made out in the rectification application as especially when in the impugned judgment in the appeal, the gist of the submissions made by the parties have not been specifically incorporated. 15. At this stage, we must observe here that as a remedy of an appeal is available before this Court against judgment and Order of the Appellate Tribunal, it will be ideal if the judgment of the Tribunal incorporates brief summary of the submissions made across the bar. 16. In normal course, we would have remitted the Application for rectification for fresh hearing before the Appellate Tribunal. But now, we are informed that both the learned members of the Appellate Tribunal are no more the members. As per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
