TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udicating authority to rectify such mistakes, which are apparent on the face of the records. The assessee’s claim of cum-duty cannot be considered to be a mistake apparent on the face of the records. The said issue is a legal issue and the appellant should have claimed the same at the time of adjudication by the original adjudicating authority or thereafter in their appeal before Commissioner(Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the tune of ₹ 7,62,645/- under the category of Renting of Immovable Property was confirmed by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Kanpur vide his Order Order-in-Original No.01/Joint Commissioner/2011 dated 14.01.2011. The original adjudicating authority also confirmed interest and imposed penalties. The said order of the Joint Commissioner was appealed against before Commissioner(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the entire consideration as cum-tax, the same was not falling within the ambit of mistake apparent on the face of the records. He accordingly rejected their application. 3. The said rejection order was challenged by the appellant before Commissioner(Appeals), who also did not agree with the appellant s contention and rejected the appeal. Hence the present appeal. 4. The facts, as available ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stakes, which are apparent on the face of the records. The assessee s claim of cum-duty cannot be considered to be a mistake apparent on the face of the records. The said issue is a legal issue and the appellant should have claimed the same at the time of adjudication by the original adjudicating authority or thereafter in their appeal before Commissioner(Appeals). They could have also challenged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|