TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the records relating to that adjudication presented before the adjudicating authority. That being the case it is certainly not a case of mistake apparent from the record and therefore there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 08.01.2008 and the same is legal and proper - Rectification denied. - ST/215/2008-CU[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO. 53939/2014 - Dated:- 28-8-2014 - Mr. G. Raghuram and Mr. R.K. Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri A.K. Batra, CA with Shri Varun, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Amresh Jain, DR JUDGEMENT PER: R.K. Singh The appellants have filed this appeal against Order-in-Original No. 02/VKJ/CST/2008 dated 08.01.2008 passed under Section 74 of Finance Act 1994 on the application for recti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of enhancing the assessment or reducing the refund or otherwise increasing the liability on the assessee. None of these consequences followed as a result of the impugned order and therefore the appellants contention that the order is not sustainable because they were not given an opportunity for being heard is obviously untenable. 4. The appellants have also argued that the order dated 15.12.2006 was passed on the basis of wrong figures and therefore the case falls within an ambit of mistake apparent from record. In this regard it is to mention that the expression used in Section 74 ibid is with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record. Thus, it has to be clearly understood that the adjudicating authority while adju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd does not need long-drawn-out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. To put it differently, it should be so manifest and clear that no Court would permit it to remain on record. If the view accepted by the Court in the original judgment is one of the possible views, the case cannot be said to be covered by an error apparent on the face of the record. 5. The appellants have nowhere argued that the adjudication order is not based on the correct appreciation of the records relating to that adjudication presented before the adjudicating authority. That being the case it is certainly not a case of mistake apparent from the rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
