Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (4) TMI 911

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... son to treat this corrigendum effective from the date the notification dated 10.09.2004 was issued wherein this corrigendum (correction) has been made. The respondents-authorities having taken a contrary view, therefore, have committed a manifest error of law - The revisional order dated 24.08.2009 confirming Commissioner (Appeals) order as also the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 22.11.2006, are hereby quashed and the orders granting rebate passed by Assistant Commissioner are hereby restored and confirmed - Decided in favour of assessee. - Writ Tax No. - 426 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 11-4-2014 - Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,JJ. For the Petitioner : Nishant Mishra,M. P. Devnath For the Respondent : A. S. G. I.,S. S. C. ORD .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6. Thereagainst petitioner preferred revision to Government of India, Ministry of Finance which has also been rejected vide order dated 24.08.2009. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that dispute relates to export of goods made during December, 2004 to March 2005. The rebate was claimed under custom Notification No. 93/2004-Cus dated 10.9.2004, as corrected by corrigendum Notification No. 605/50/2005-DBK dated 17.05.2005. The respondents, however, have held that corrigendum having been issued on 17.05.2005 it was not applicable to transactions which took place in December, 2004 to March, 2005 and the corrigendum has to apply prospectively, therefore, entitlement of petitioner for rebate will have to be considered in the ligh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... modification or alteration in the earlier notification so as to make a change therein as such but when the author of a document makes a correction, it relates back to the date of initial authoring for the reason that correction means whatever written was not correct or there was some mistake which need be corrected. A correction or corrigendum precedes an inherent admission on the part of the person making correction/issuing corrigendum that the initial document or initial authored material has some mistake and admitting this mistake the same is being rectified/corrected and hence a correction/corrigendum. 8. Normally the word corrigendum is used when correction is made in a printed matter which has already disclosed to public and, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nion, Notification No. 4841 is in the nature of a correction (corrigendum) and, therefore, it dates back to the date of the notification corrected thereby, namely, June 11, 1974, on which date Notification No. 3867 was issued. A correction is a correction only when it dates back to the original order or the proceeding as the case may be. It ceases to be correction if it is effective from the date of its issuance; it then becomes an amendment. This intrinsic nature of concept of correction cannot be lost sight of. 16. The Apex Court has also observed in State of Rajasthan and another Vs. J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. and another, 2004(7) SCC 673 that the use of word corrigendum indicates the intention of correction and to rectify that the Sta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... notification issued in respect of an earlier exemption notification admitting apparent omission therein necessitating the issuance of correction/corrigendum notification. Therefore, principle applied herein would be different. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on another principle that a beneficial circular should be given retroactive effect while oppressive circular has to be applied prospectively and relied on Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Mysore Electricals Industries Ltd., 2006 (204) ELT 517 (SC) and Suchitra Components Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guntur, 2007(208) ELT 321 (SC) but I do not find application of above principle in the case in hand since the matter does not relate to an independe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates