9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Order-in-Appeal No. 9/OR/85, dated 4-2-1985 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta and allowed the appeal of Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar. The operative portion of the order of Collector (Appeals) was as under :- "In the order of the CEGAT cited by the Assistant Collector it was specifically stated that the order will be effective from the date of issue of the show cause notice, dated 23-4-1981 but the Assistant Collector has reviewed the Classification List, dated 1-6-1978 to 8-3-1981 which is not in keeping with the order of the CEGAT. Therefore, the order of the Assistant Collector is set aside and the case is remanded back to him for fresh decision according to law and principles of natural justice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel states that mistake had occurred in the order of the Tribunal when it decided to set aside the order of Collector (Appeals) by travelling beyond the prayer made in the appeal of the Department. All that the Department prayed was to hold that Collector (Appeals) was not right in giving guidelines to the Assistant Collector as to how he should proceed in the matter. The Tribunal had gone beyond the scope of the appeal in effect in confirming the order of revision of the Classification List No. 18/78, dated 1-6-1978 to Classification List 1/79, dated 1-3-1979 passed by the Assistant Collector on 9-8-1984. He, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal may correct the mistake by restoring the order of Collector (Appeals) so far as it relates to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Tribunal because it was not a part of the record of the case. Moreover, the learned Counsel had not furnished any justification why it should be taken into account at this stage. She also contested the plea of the learned Counsel that Collector (Appeals) was justified in remanding the matter to the Assistant Collector with a direction to issue show cause notices and hear the appellants before undertaking revision of other Classification Lists on the ground that the Assistant Collector was acting in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal, dated 22-6-1984. She referred to Paragraphs 10 to 12 of this order and submitted that the Tribunal had at that time itself considered the plea of the respondents and held that the proceedings under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal-III v. Kelvin Jute Co. Ltd. [126 ITR (1980) 679] as well as Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Mithalal Ashok Kumar, [158 ITR (1986) 755], in all of which the Courts had held that where there was an obvious or patent mistake in an order, it could be corrected by the authority. The learned Counsel's submission was that since the Tribunal had fallen in error in setting aside the order of Collector (Appeals) and this error was apparent from the record, there was no reason why it could not be corrected under Section 35C(2) of the Act. 9. We have carefully considered the ROM application and the submissions made by both sides. It is an admitted fact that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e recovered by way of differential duty on past clearances. In such circumstances, proceedings under the Review Show Cause Notice cannot be said to be invalid so far as the period subsequent to the date of issue thereof is concerned. Though any demand, if it is to be made with reference to the period prior thereto, may not be legal in view of the third Proviso to Section 36(2) of the Act. We are, therefore, not convinced of the correctness of the contention of the respondent that the entire proceedings following the Review Show Cause Notice should be held to be invalid in view of the time limit, prescribed under Section 36(2) third proviso, irrespective of the period of the clearances. 13. We have already held that the manufacture of glass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Circle IV, Bombay v. Volkart Brothers & Others (supra) in which it was held as under : "..... A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. ... In Satyanarain Laxminarain Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bharanappa Tirumale [1960 (1) SCR 890], this Court while spelling out the scope of the power of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ruled that an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A decision on a debatable point of law i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
