TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... soap cakes. When both the appeals are rejected, find that the Tribunal has not arrived at any decision. Hence there is no decision of the Tribunal on the issues involved and canvassed. In the light of the above discussion, the matter is to be re-heard. - E/2511/2003 and E/3865/2002 - M/772-773/2010-WZB/MUM/C-II/EB - Dated:- 27-5-2010 - S/Shri P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) and Ashok Jindal, Member (J) REPRESENTED BY: Dr. T. Tiju, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per: Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. - Both the Revenue and the appellants have filed application for rectification of mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal vide Order No. A/898 to 900/08/C-II/EB, dated 11-12-2008 [20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded on the basis that both the appeals were filed by M/s. Aura Oil Industries, which is not correct. He also submitted that in that situation, the matter is to be re-heard. To support his contention, he placed reliance on Asstt. Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. reported in 2008 (230) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) = 2010 (18) S.T.R. 84 (S.C.), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under - "40. The core issue, therefore, is whether non-consideration of a decision of Jurisdictional Court (in this case a decision of the High Court of Gujarat) or of the Supreme Court can be said to be a "mistake apparent from the record"? In our opinion, both - the Tribunal and the High Court - were right in holding that suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Tribunal which were relied upon by the Appellant. The Appellant, therefore, filed an application for rectification pointing out that he had relied upon the two judgments of the Tribunal in his submissions. The Tribunal, however, disposed of his Appeal without considering those judgments. His application was disposed of by an order dated 3-1-2007. Again, without referring to the two judgments of the Tribunal on which the Appellant was relying. In our opinion, the procedure that has been followed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law. If the writ ten submissions of the Appellant dated 28-9-2005 were before the Tribunal, it was for the Tribunal to consider the case of the Appellant as submitted by him in his written submissions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Tribunal. He also pointed out that there was an error apparent on record since both the appeals were rejected as per the order. Only the appeal by M/s. Auro Oil Industries was rejected and appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed and cross-objection filed by the appellant was also disposed of. 5. Heard both sides. 6. We have gone through the order passed by this Tribunal and we find that while passing the order, the Tribunal had rejected both the appeals. The issue involved is one of valuation of soap cakes. The appeals had canvassed, diametrically opposite cases. The tenor of the Order is as if both the appeals were filed by M/s. Auro Oil Industries. It is also obvious from the order that this Tribunal though noted the case laws ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
