Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 1172 - CESTAT MUMBAIRectification of mistake - typographical error - first appellate authority denied to consider rectification - Refund of accumulated CENVAT credit - HELD THAT:- It is pointed out in the appeal memorandum that the first appellate authority, instead of specifying that the consequence of his findings was allowing of the appeal to the extent of ₹ 49,86,362/-, held as ineligible by the original authority, erred in stating it to be ₹ 45,94,327 for which the appellant had, vide, letter dated 15th January 2019, sought the intervention of the office of the appellate authority to set right - The refund releasing authority, in order dated 31st January 2019, did not consider it appropriate for the differential amount to be disbursed prompting this appeal for setting right the order of the first appellate authority. The disinclination on the part of the first appellate authority to consider rectification that does not compromise the intent of his order is inexplicable. It is certainly not the attitude expected of a senior functionary who is tasked with statutory empowerment to be discharged in a responsible and responsive manner. To offer the hapless appellant gratuitous advice of appellate recourse to the Tribunal is adding insult to injury. Heeding that advice, the assessee is before us with consequent expending of time and effort on the part of the Tribunal. Unless a serious, and punitive, view is taken of this episode, we encourage opening the floodgates of such ‘upward delegation’ that is inimical to public interest. Cost of ₹ 5000, to be paid into the account of the Maharashtra Legal Aid Services Authority, is imposed on the officer concerned to be identified by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upon due inquiry to fix responsibility for the lapse. The Tribunal, though not entrusted with responsibility for rectification of ‘typographical/clerical’ errors in orders of lower authorities, cannot justify its existence within the judicial edifice in turning away an appellant, who is in conformity with the prescriptions of section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944, from the portals of justice - the matter is remanded back to the first appellate authority for correction of such errors as are to be rectified.
|