TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... samples are cleared from the factory. In the said case, samples were cleared from the factory for testing quality unlike in the instant case where the practice was to test the control samples, if need be, in an in-house laboratory, which procedure did not involve any clearance of the goods from the factory - What is said to be apparent mistake does not exist in this case. Moreover, the application appears to have made an attempt to re-argue their case, which is beyond the scope of Section 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act. An error to be rectified under this provision should be one manifest on the record and should not be one which may be brought out through a long-drawn process of arguments - Decided against revenue. - Appeal No. 2128/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... samples of pesticides which became unfit for consumption/marketing after the expiry date. It is pointed out that such control samples were destroyed by the appellant without intimation to the department. It is further submitted that the appellant had not properly accounted for the test samples of pesticides and also had not maintained records for drawal of samples for quality test. It is submitted that these aspects were not recorded in the Final Order. Finally it is prayed that the Final Order be suitably modified. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. I am not impressed with the plea for the modification of the Final Order which was passed and pronounced in open court after hearing the Superintendent (AR). Many of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in favour of the Revenue on the facts of this case is unacceptable. I have also noticed the fact that the show-cause notice in this case nowhere referred to Rule 21 ibid. Todays arguments based on this Rule are beyond the scope of the show-cause notice. 4. What is said to be apparent mistake does not exist in this case. Moreover, the application appears to have made an attempt to re-argue their case, which is beyond the scope of Section 35C (2) of the Central Excise Act. An error to be rectified under this provision should be one manifest on the record and should not be one which may be brought out through a long-drawn process of arguments. 5. In the result, the application gets dismissed. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
