TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Supreme Court in Union of India v. Solar Pesticides P. Ltd. [2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.)]. The applicants submit that the Supreme Court in the said case had not dealt with or decided on any question of Modvat credit taken or not taken. Their submission as contained in para (iii) of the application is that they had been consistently pleading for the benefit of Modvat credit of CVD in lieu of refund. 2. To briefly recapitulate the facts of the case, the applicants had paid CVD at 18% on Palm Kernel Fatty Acid Distillate imported and cleared under Bill of Entry dated 24-10-98. The classification of the goods at the time of such clearance was held under Chapter Heading 38.20 of the Customs Tariff Schedule. Subsequently, the party filed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t credit of the excess CVD in lieu of refund thereof. Pressing this Misc. application, ld counsel cites a precedent of this Tribunal exercising inherent jurisdiction under Rule 41. The Tribunal made provision in the final order for set off of certain deposit of the assessee against the amount of duty refundable to them by the department. Counsel submits that the order so passed by the Tribunal under Rule 41 was upheld by the Supreme Court. Copies of the orders of the Tribunal and the Apex Court have been produced by the counsel today. Ld. Counsel prays for following the above precedent and modifying the final order dated 31-7-2002 appropriately. 3. Ld. SDR opposes this application. She submits that the applicants are making a veiled endea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt s ruling in Solar Pesticides (supra). The applicants have no case that the Bench did not apply its mind to the Apex Court s ruling or that the ruling was not applicable to the refund claim. They have clearly stated in the present application itself that the Bench had relied on that judgment in this case. The applicants have not pointed out any obvious and patent mistake which could be considered as apparent from the record. Something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on any debatable point cannot be a mistake apparent from the record as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in T.S. Balaram v. Volkart Brothers (supra) cited by ld. SDR. It must be an obvious and patent mistake. In the instant, the requirement is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
