9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l was by the other Assessee. This should have been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Division Bench, because it is the case of both the Assessees that they are manufacturing the same product - The Hon'ble Division Bench having passed the judgement dated 19.10.2011, the Tribunal would have absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain an application for rectification, because the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 04.05.2010 has been decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench, though at the instance of the other Assessee and the doctrine of Merger would apply - the Tribunal should have dismissed the application for rectification on the ground that it is not maintainable. Appeal dismissed - decided against assessee. - Tax Case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/assessee vehemently contended that the points, which were canvassed by the appellant/assessee from the stage of appeal, were not taken into consideration, in the sense that there is no provision in Rule 173B to approve 173B declaration provisionally and that the Department should have issued Show Cause Notice (SCN) for the entire disputed period as provided in Rule 173B. In this regard, reliance was placed on a letter issued by the Directorate of Drugs Control, Madras, dated 13.06.1995. 6. Firstly, before we consider as to whether the application seeking for rectification of mistake or not, we are required to consider as to whether such an application was maintainable before the Tribunal. Af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Tribunal : 11. We have perused the memorandum of grounds of appeal before the CESTAT. The appellant had raised the said ground in paragraph 2(e) of the grounds of appeal. The CESTAT had considered and rejected the same solely on the ground of suppression. In our opinion, the question of limitation should be considered with reference to the above provisions, which the CESTAT had not gone into, and for that reason, the contention of Mr.K.Jayachandran must be accepted. Though we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in regard to the substantial questions of law 2 3, we find that the challenge in the appeal on the first substantial question of law must be accepted. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the application for rectification on the ground that it is not maintainable. In any event, we find that the grounds now canvassed in the rectification application require a long drawn reasoning, which is impermissible in a review application. Thus, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 10. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal stands dismissed and the substantial question of law framed for consideration is answered against the appellant/assessee and in favour of the Revenue. No costs. 11. We make it clear that any observations contained in this judgement will not in any manner prejudice the rights of the appellant/assessee or the other assessee, namely, M/s.Velvette International Pharma Produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
