Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2017 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 1179 - HC - Central ExciseRectification of mistake - CENVAT/MODVAT credit - inputs used in manufacture of Aluminum Slugs and Containers - denial on the ground that it were only paper transactions and that the appellants willfully suppressed the facts - Held that: - Law is well settled. When a Court or a Tribunal records that a particular submission was made across the bar, the correctness of the recording as to what transpired before the Court or Tribunal cannot be gone into by a higher forum in Appeal or Revision. If it is recorded that a particular submission was canvassed, it is a recording of what transpired before the concerned Court or Tribunal. Unless what is recorded is corrected by the same Court or Tribunal, the Higher forum which deals with an appeal or a revision will have to proceed on the footing that the factual statements recorded in the impugned judgment are correct. Sub Section (2) of Section 35C gives a specific remedy to a party to appeal to apply for rectifying mistakes apparent from the record. As in the order passed in the rectification application, the main issue canvassed in the rectification application has not been gone into, it is not open for us to adopt inferential process and decide whether the said points set out in the rectification application were urged before the Appellate Tribunal - the Tribunal has committed an error by not considering the specific case made out in the rectification application as especially when in the impugned judgment in the appeal, the gist of the submissions made by the parties have not been specifically incorporated. To avoid possibility of any prejudice to the appellant, it will be appropriate if by setting aside the impugned judgment and order, the Appellate Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal afresh - appeal allowed in part - part matter on remand.
|