TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of the Tribunal before Bombay High Court as the Tribunal finds it time barred. The Revenue contends that application filed by revenue on is within the time limit as High Court has given them liberty to move to Tribunal for appropriate relief. Held that:- Tribunal cannot decide the incorrect application of law while deciding the issue in application. Therefore, the request of Revenue for consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an Appeal No. 323/2006 dated 29.9.2006 and the appeal was decided by the Bombay High Court on 8.12.2010. The Revenue contends that the ROM application filed by them on 14.3.11 is within the time limit as High Court has given them liberty to move to Tribunal for appropriate relief. 2. I find that the CESTAT's order dated 17.11.2005 was received by the applicant Revenue on 3.4.2006 and they filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur vs. RDS Concrete (India) P. Ltd. 2011(270) E.L.T. 625 (S.C.) has observed as under:- 21. This Court has decided in several cases that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and the mistake should not be such which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning. In the case of T.S.Balram v. M/s. Volkart Brothers ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
