9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the petitioners. This petition is directed against the order dated 16-2-2004 whereby the Tribunal has modified its earlier order dated 17-1-2003 directing pre-deposit of the entire duty amount in the sum of Rs. 76,48,320/-. 2. Mr. R.V. Desai, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that in the garb of modification the Tribunal has virtually reviewed its own order date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatute. The Apex Court also ruled that no such inherent powers to review is granted under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to CESTAT. Only limited power to rectify mistake is given to the Tribunal under Section 35C(2). 4. In the above backdrop, only question which needs consideration is: whether the impugned order can be said to be an outcome of the review jurisdiction or could it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd of mistake apparent on the face of record, one of the shades of power to review appears to have been conceded by the legislature in favour of the Tribunal so as to enable the Tribunal to rectify its mistake or error and to modify its order. Tribunal cannot review its order but can always modify. 7. Turning to the facts of this case, it is prima facie clear from the order dated 17-1-2003 (o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
