Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Versus CCE, Delhi-I

2016 (6) TMI 508 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Period of limitation - Seeking correction of typographical/clerical error - preamble recorded in the CESTAT order suffers from obvious mistake – Held that:- the provisions of Section 35C(2) 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o 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/56251/2014 in E/1093/2008-EX. (DB) - Misc. Order No. 50452/2016 - Dated:- 3-5-2016 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) and Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

issioner of Central Excise, Rohtak) M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Appellant Vs. CCE, Rohtak-I Respondent The appellant states that the above aforesaid preamble should be amended to read as under : E/Appeal No. 2988/2007 (Arising out of order-in-original No. 21/Comm/RP/07-CE dated 13.8.07 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak) M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Appellant Vs. CCE, Rohtak Respondent E/Appeal No. 1093/2008 (Arising out of order-in-original 10/2008 dat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or 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 is identically worded as Section 35C(2) of the Ce .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d that should be complied with. It was also held that in such situations, provision of limitation specified in Section 129B (2) of the Customs Act would not be attracted but it was also necessary that such an application should be filed within a reasonable time, which the Court or Tribunal after examining it finds to be prima facie correct, then in order to do justice, the same should be considered on merits since nothing fetters the judges hands from doing justice, which is above all law. It al .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cannot be disputed that preamble recorded in the CESTAT order suffers from obvious mistake inasmuch as it in effect states that both these appeals (E/2988/2007 and E/1093/2008) arose out of order-in-original No. 21/10/Comm/RP/07-CE dated 13.8.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Rohtak. We now turn to the provisions of Section 35C(2) of Excise Act, which is reproduced below: Section 35C (2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within six months from the date of the order, with a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n be corrected even after the period of six months. Both sides cited judicial pronouncements in support of their contentions. However, a careful reading of the provisions 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version