9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the benefit to the applicant/appellant denying it to be retrospectively available. In the given circumstances, it becomes clear that the issue still remains is as to whether the compliance of condition can be given a retrospective effect. Irrespective of the Adjudicating Authority has decided it in favour of the Department, it still is a debatable issue. The aggrieved party has a remedy to take this debate to a higher forum, but the same cannot be considered as an error apparent on record. Larger Bench in the case of Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Vs. C.C.E. Vadodara [2000 (9) TMI 1068 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] has held that a subsequent proceeding is not a ground for reopening a concluded proceeding and passing fresh Order. App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with a Show Cause Notice dated 05.09.2014 and the demand herein has been confirmed vide the Order of this Tribunal as well dated 11.11.2018. It is submitted that the appellant took various grounds before the Tribunal praying for quashing the Order-in-Original dated 15.09.2015 as mentioned in para 8 of the application but the benefit of Notification 50/2003 was still denied. 3. It is alleged that the denial, in absence of considering the relevant fact that non filing of declaration is only a procedural mistake for which substantial benefit cannot be denied, is an error apparent on record. Resultantly, the Order is prayed to be rectified. Appellant has relied upon Packaging India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Meerut 2013 (294) E.L.T. 246 (Tri. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing heard. 6. The very perusal of the provision makes it clear that any mistake as is apparent on record can be considered under this provision. The first thing to appreciate the same is as to whether the issue canvassed in rectification application was raised before the authority whose order is prayed to be rectified. In case same has been put forth but has not been considered and it is relevant for the proper adjudication of the case, to that extent the same can be considered as an error apparent on record. However, if the issue was presented before the Adjudicating Authority and has been dealt expressly in the decision, the same cannot be held to be an error apparent. 7. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is clear that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an order passed by one Bench of the High Court would be tempted to attempt to get the matter reopened before another Bench, and there would not be any end to such attempts. Besides, it was not consistent with the judicial discipline which must be maintained by Courts both in the interest of administration of justice by assuring the binding nature of an order which becomes final and the faith of the people in the judiciary. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the RoM is nothing by an attempt that review of the final order which is not permissible in law as per the ration laid down in the following cases: (i) Prajatantra Prachar Samity Vs. CIT 24 ITR 160 Orissa; (ii) CIT vs MdDowell Co. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
