9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 (3) TMI 108 - SC ORDER] and given a finding in the Order-in-Original regarding the applicability of that decision in the present case. The Tribunal also examined the submissions made by the Appellant and given a finding in respect of the issue on merits. The Tribunal has also given a finding regarding the reasons for invocation of extended period. After examining all these issues the Final Order was issued by the Tribunal. A perusal of the decision clearly indicate that for considering the ROM, the discovery of the mistake must not require a long process of reasoning. If an issue raised by the Appellant has not been discussed at all in the Order by the Tribunal, then only such an error can be rectified under an ROM. In this case the two g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice. The fact of not disclosing the usage would not amount to suppression of fact and hence extended period should not have been invoked to demand the duty. In the above said Final order, Tribunal also confirmed the demands and imposed penalty on the same grounds. He stated that Tribunal s order referred to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. Louis Shope Ors. [1996 (83) ELT 13 (SC)], wherein it has been clarified that even when some machinery are used, the works undertaken by them will still qualify as handicraft. The said decision has been accepted by the department and the Circular has been issued by Board vide CBEC Circular No.773/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the reasons for invocation of extended period. He stated that the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court cited above has been referred and discussed by the Adjudicating authority as well as the Tribunal. The decision taken after considering all these facts can only be challenged by way of an appeal and not by an application for rectification of mistake. Hence, he requested for dismissal of the ROM. 5. Heard both sides and perused all the relevant records and the decisions cited by the Appellant has also been taken on record. 6. We find that the Adjudicating authority has examined the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. Louis Shope Ors. and given a finding in the Order-in-Original re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r sought to be rectified or not should not be a subject of debate. Once a mistake is brought to the notice of the Tribunal, it is duty bound to correct the mistake in its order, where an issue has been argued and/or submission made on the issue and the same is not recorded and/or considered in the order, it follows that there is a mistake apparent from the record. A perusal of the decision clearly indicate that for considering the ROM, the discovery of the mistake must not require a long process of reasoning. If an issue raised by the Appellant has not been discussed at all in the Order by the Tribunal, then only such an error can be rectified under an ROM. In this case the two grounds raised by the Appellants have been discussed in the Fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
