9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resident]. - This application under Section 35-C (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been filed for correction of mistake in Final Order No. 1311/6$ dated 11-8-2000. By the said order, the appeal of the applicant had been dismissed. The appeal had arisen from the Order-in-Original of the Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur, confirming demand of Rs. 40,519/- and imposing penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 173-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. Sub-section (2) of Section 35-C of the Central Excise Act provides that the Appellate Tribunal may, at any time, within six months from the date of the order, rectify any mistake apparent from the record and amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) on application made in that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to go into the aforesaid dispute about the date/period of filing of the application as we were, prima facie, of the view that the application is beyond the scope of Section 35-C(2). We called upon the parties to make submissions on assumption that the application had been filed within time. However, before we proceed to consider the submissions, we would like to observe that though we have not gone into the question as to whether the application was filed within time, we are not able to appreciate the conduct of the appellant in not pursuing the application for over six years until they sent the aforesaid letter dated 18-12-2006 which led to 'reconstruction' of the record. If the applicant had indeed filed the application within time i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 794 (Guj.) = 2008 (10) STR 103 (Guj.) (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Bharat Bijlee Ltd., 2006 (198) E.L.T. 489 (S.C.); (iii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Keshav Fruit Mart, 2005 (191) E.L.T. 147 (All.) (iv) RPG Life Services Ltd. v. Union of India - 2005 (187) E.L.T. 433 (Guj.); (v) Bharat Metal Box Co. v. CEGAT, Madras -1998 (98) E.L.T. 68 (A.P.); (vi) Aarpee Electricals (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore , 2005 (189) E.L.T. 437 (T. Bang); (vii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Autocratic Indus. Ltd., 2004 (177) E.L.T. 1110 (T.-Del.); (viii) Chinttapurni Engg. v. CCE, Lucknow , 2003 (158) E.L.T. 535 (T-Del.); and (ix) H.P.L. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... face of record and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to correct the mistake in exercise of power under Section 35-C (2) of the Act. Keshav Fruit Mart (supra) too was a reverse case. Though the ground had been taken in the memorandum of appeal and argued, the Tribunal did not at all consider the ground. The Tribunal later set aside the order and fixed the case for re-hearing. The High Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's order. In the case of RPG Life Sciences Ltd. (supra) the High Court found that the Tribunal had failed to take into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court and this was held to be an error apparent on the face of the re cord. In the case of Bharat Metal Box Co. (supra) it was held that the order a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion is taken by the other side. 10. In the instant case, except a vague pleading in para 7 of the Grounds to the effect that "as there is no suppression of facts, the demand is time barred as the demand relates to the period which is beyond six months", it does not appear that the ground was seriously canvassed. From the record, it appears that the dispute was raised with respect to classification. It is relevant to mention here that no such plea appears to have been taken by the applicant in the reply to the show cause notice or argued before the Collector, Central Excise, vide the Order-in-Original. No foundational facts were stated in the memo portion of the appeal. 11. A perusal of the rectification application suggests that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be made out. However, an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on a point where two opinions are conceivable would not constitute error on the face of record. An error can be said to be apparent on the face of record only when it is patent and can be found without any elaborate argument, without any scope for controversy, with regard to such error. If the law that is applied is not the law applicable, it will be a case of error apparent on the face of record. If the judgment is defective, on the face of it, or where an important issue on which the outcome of the proceeding would depend, has not been considered or the law declared by the Apex Court or the jurisdictional High Court has not been noticed, tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
