9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 953X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber (Judicial) Shri Nivas Kotani, Advocate for the appellant Shri Amresh Jain, DR for the respondent ORDER Per V. Padmanabhan 1. The present Miscellaneous application for rectification of mistake has been filed by the respondent in Appeal No. ST/532/2012 which was decided by this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 57033/2018 dated 20/03/2018. 2. Shri Nivas Kotani, learned advocate on behalf of the applicant and Shri Amresh Jain, learned DR on behalf of the Revenue. 3. The Ld. Advocate, arguing the grounds raised in ROM submitted as that certain errors are apparent in the final order. (i) He submitted that this may be rectified. In the opening page of the Final Order, it has been mentioned that this arises o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... looked and in view of the explanation inserted in Section 65(105) (zzc) retrospectively with effect from 1/07/2003, by Finance Act, 2010, he submitted that the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of time bar granted in the case of M/s Unitech(supra) 4. Ld. DR vehemently justified the impugned order. (i) He submitted that the errors points out by the Ld. Advocate were insignificant and there is no need for amendment in the Final Order (ii) He further submitted that in the final order, the entire submissions and arguments advanced have been considered by the Tribunal before passing the said order. The appellant, by raising such detailed and minute arguments was, in fact, seeking review of the final order which is not permissibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the benefit of bonafide belief in the lines of the decision in case of M/s Unitech has been taken after due deliberation and consideration of the entire record of the case. If the appellant is aggrieved with such finding, the right course of action would to be to challenge the order in the appropriate appellate forum. 9. We note that the scope of the rectification of the mistakes application is very limited. Only mistakes which are apparent on the face of the record and which do not require long drawn process of arguments by both sides, may be rectified. It is well settled law that applicant cannot seek review of the order in the guise of rectification of mistakes. This view finds support in the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
