2003 (12) TMI 59

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... le to hold that the error was a manifest one which could admit of no dispute. It was a debatable point which was raised, and the conclusion of the Tribunal in the impugned order clearly shows that it has considered the question from the point of view of the sufficiency of the material to justify the demand raised. In the circumstances of the case we allow the appeals and set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal. We are told that the respondent has in the meanwhile filed a reference application under Sec. 35G of the Act before the Tribunal. In view of our order, the Tribunal can now hear and dispose of that application as expeditiously as is conveniently possible.
Ruma Pal and P. Venkatarama Reddi, JJ. V. Shridharan, Alok Yadav and V .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d only reflect the subsequent stage when the finished product was available for being removed from the factory. There was in fact no discrepancy between the plant performance Report and the entry of RG 1 register if this fact was taken into consideration and therefore no suppression. 3.The Tribunal accepted the application for rectification and set aside the demand by upholding the plea of the respondent, it said. "It has therefore on balance to be held that the department has not produced sufficient material to successfully establish beyond the reasonable doubt that the figures of production entered in the RG 1 register are incorrect. The demand for duty on this score cannot be confirmed. Consequently the penalty imposed on this score of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... edings where this Court has remanded the matter back for reconsideration by the Tribunal when it was pointed out to this Court that the Tribunal had omitted to consider all points. In addition it is submitted that the Tribunal had inherent jurisdiction to rectify such an obvious error since no litigant should suffer by reason of the action of the Tribunal. 7.The power of review is not an inherent power and must be expressly granted. It has not been so granted under the Central Excise Act to the Tribunal. What has been given is a limited power under Sec. 35C(2) which provides as follows : The Appellate tribunal may, at any time"(2) within (six months from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X