TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectification. The Tribunal no doubt can recall its order in view of Section 129 B (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. Anything to become the subject matter of rectification it has to be self evident, obvious and palpable mistake which do not require any further deliberations. Reverting to the remaining submissions of the applicant when read along with the final order, it is observed that the plea about the composition scheme has clearly been dealt with as specific finding that the rate at which the Appellant has paid the duty is in itself sufficient that he has not availed the benefit of composition scheme. Hence, there was no reason with this Tribunal to order for any consequential benefit - Coming to the calculation error as pointed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant could not have been considered as no findings have been given for the same. In this respect para-13 of the order is impressed upon where appellant is held to have a bona-fide impression. However, no order as far as imposition of penalty is concerned, has been passed. Similarly, para-12 of the order though speaks about composition scheme to be a beneficial legislation and, therefore, implications have to be in favour of assessee. However, no consequential benefit has been ordered. No finding has been given with respect to income tax benefit and there is no finding as to whether the appellant has opted for composition scheme or not despite that the appellant has paid the duty @ 12.3% in contrast to the regular duty applicable @ 10.3%. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being out of scope of the rectification, we first need to highlight the scope of rectification. The Tribunal no doubt can recall its order in view of Section 129 B (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The issue is otherwise no longer resintegra. Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Honda SIEL Power Products Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 12 SCC 596 has held that the Tribunal has power to rectify the mistake provided the same apparent on its record. Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai Vs. NTB International Pvt. Ltd. reported as 2014(302)ELT 481 (Mumbai) has explained the meaning of error apparent on record by holding that the mistake to be apparent on record must be obvious and self evident and discovery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therwise is out of the scope of the Tribunal. The mistake as alleged is, therefore, not at all self evident, hence cannot be called as error apparent on record. As for as the plea of cum-tax-benefit is concerned, the plea has not been raised in grounds of appeal. The allegation that the same was not considered by this Tribunal despite been submitted is, therefore, not sustainable. 10. In view of entire above discussion, the remaining grievances of the applicant are held absolutely out of the scope of rectification of mistake. The remaining request is accordingly hereby rejected. 11 As a result, the request about making a typographical correction in para-8 of the final order has been considered, rest all the requests have been declined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
