TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E/1093/2008. Correcting the mistake pointed out because Appeal No. E/1093/2008 did not arise out of order-in-original No. 21/10/Comm/RP/07 dated 13.8.2007 passed by Central Excise Commissioner, Rohtak (as recorded in the preamble part of the order) but admittedly arose out of order-in-original No. 10/2008 dated 28.2.2008 passed by Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi-I, does not tantamount to amending the order which remains unaltered. Therefore, it is pointless to indulge in an elaborate discussion on the various contentions raised by Revenue to assert that the Tribunal cannot amend or rectify mistake in the order after six months, because, to repeat, no amendment of the order is being sought. – ROM applocation allowed - E/ROM/56251/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al No. 1093/2008 arose out of order in original No. 10/2008 dated 28.2.2008 which did not find mention in the preamble of the aforesaid CESTAT order. 3. The ld. Advocate for the appellant stated that the application has been filed seeking correction of typographical/clerical error and not for re-consideration of any issue arising out of the order of the Tribunal on merits and that Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules confers upon Tribunal inherent power to make such corrections. It cited the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Sunitadevi Singhania Hospital Trust Vs. UOI 2009 (233) ELT 295 (SC) wherein the Supreme Court held that period of limitation specified in terms of sub-section (2) of 129B of the Custom Act, 1962 (which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the judgement in the case of Sree Ayyanar Spg. Wvg. Mills Ltd. (supra) to assert that the Tribunal was denuded of power to extend the limitation period of six months prescribed under Section 35C(2) and argued that consequently the application was required to be dismissed. It also cited the judgement of Karnataka High Court in the case of J.K. Tyre Industries Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commr. of Central Excise, Mysore-II - 2011 (266) ELT 163 (Kar.) and some other judgements in this regard. 5. We have considered the contentions of both sides. In this regard, we find that it is not in dispute that vide the aforesaid CESTAT order dated 12.3.2012 two appeals were disposed of, Appeal No. E/2988/2007 and Appeal No. E/1093/2008. It is also a f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of Section 35C(2) quoted above clearly reveals that this sub-section deals with rectification of mistake in the order and allows amendment of the order with a view to rectifying mistake apparent from the record. In the present case the appellant is not seeking any amendment to the order or rectification of any mistake in the order. Indeed there is no mistake in the order of the Tribunal which, as stated earlier, disposed of Appeals No. E/2988/2007 and E/1093/2008. Correcting the mistake pointed out earlier because Appeal No. E/1093/2008 did not arise out of order-in-original No. 21/10/Comm/RP/07 dated 13.8.2007 passed by Central Excise Commissioner, Rohtak (as recorded in the preamble part of the order) but admittedly aros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
