9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clause came into force two months after the appeal was rejected. The amendment was brought into Section 35C(2) in 2002 with effect from 11.05.2002, i.e., more than one year after the appeal was rejected. The appellant even then waited for another two years before an application was filed, which was produced at Annexure-C dated 19.01.2004. It is also pertinent that there were three appeals dismiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Bangalore [for brevity CESTAT ]. The CESTAT, by the said order, refused to restore an appeal filed by the appellant. The issue which was the subject matter of the appeal, originally filed by the appellant, was with respect to MODVAT credit. The appellant was granted MODVAT credit, which order was appealed by the Department as per the provisions of the Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hree of assessee's appeals were rejected, as is seen from Annexure-D order produced. 3. The CE Act provided a saving clause, being Section 38A, introduced in 2001 with effect from 11.05.2001. Section 35C(2) provided for a four year limitation period in which the Appellate Tribunal could rectify any mistake apparent from the record or amend the order passed under sub-section (1). The assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of the original order. When the period of limitation is reduced to the prejudice of the litigant, then necessarily an application could be filed within a reasonable time from the date of such amendment, which definitely could be considered by the Tribunal. But there can be no contention raised that dehors the amendment reducing the limitation period the orders issued earlier should be govern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
