9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rma, Member (Judicial) Shri Lakshmikumaran, Advocate for the appellant Shri K Poddar, DR for the respondent ORDER Per: Ajay Sharma This application has been filed by the appellant for rectification of mistakes in the order dated 04/07/2018, passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 51231/2018-SM. As per the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant the main grievance is in paragraph 5 of the said order, which is extracted as under; 5. In view of the above, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is justified in the impugned order in holding that this explanation is clarificatory in nature and has retrospective applicability and therefore the explanation inserted vide Notification No. 3/2011 dated 1.3.2011 has retrospective effect. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appeal Paper Book. 5.3 It is a settled principle that judicial propriety coherence demands following of an Order passed by a Division Bench which is superior and binding upon the Single Member Bench (a sub-ordinate court) and thus the same would prevail. 5.4 However, in the Final Order passed by the Hon ble Tribunal, though the said argument has been recorded, but not finding has been recorded by the Hon ble Tribunal in respect of the detailed submissions and the case law relied upon by the Applicant at the time of hearing. This is an error apparent from record, which needs to be rectified by this Hon ble CESTAT. 5.5 It is submitted that it is a settled law that non-consideration of a binding precedent would constitut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that since the Ld Counsel has taken so much time for arguing the instant application this itself shows that there is no apparent mistake in the order. 4. I have gone through the entire order as well as the application filed by the appellant and after hearing the submissions of both the sides at length, according to me there is no mistake in the order which required to be rectified and whatever has been argued at the time of passing the Final Order, has been recorded and considered therein and the submissions made in this application do not fall within the ambit of rectification of mistake. 5. Therefore, there is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
