TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, therefore, the said order is hereby quashed and set aside - following the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of RDC Concrete (India) P. Ltd., I am of the view that the applicant is seeking reconsideration of the case which would tantamount to reopening and rehearing the matter in full which is impermissible and thus the ROM Petition is rejected. - Application No.E/ROM/40407/2016 in E/323/2012 - MISC ORDER No.40420/2016 - Dated:- 8-9-2016 - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Judicial Member Shri R. Janardhanan Pillai, Consultant, For the Applicant Shri L. Paneerselvam, AC (AR), For the Respondent Order This rectification of mistake petition is filed against the Final Order No.40593/2016 dated 08.04.2016 passed by this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5C(2) of the Act. This Court has already laid down law in the case of T.S. Balram v. M/s. Volkart Brothers, 82 ITR 50 to the effect that a mistake apparent from the recor cannot be something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. It has been also held that a decision on a debatable point of law cannot be a mistake apparent from the record. If one looks at the subsequent order passed by the CESTAT in pursuance of the rectification application, it is very clear that the CESTAT re-appreciated the evidence and came to a different conclusion than the earlier one. At an earlier point of time, the CESTAT came to a conclusion that the company to which the respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent and he was not in practice. The aforestated facts clearly show that the CESTAT took a different view in pursuance of the rectification application. The submissions which were made before the CESTAT by the respondent-assessee while arguing the rectification application were also advanced before the CESTAT when the appeal was heard at an earlier stage. The arguments not accepted at an earlier point of time were accepted by the CESTAT after hearing the rectification application. It is strange as to how a particular decision taken by the CESTAT after considering all the relevant facts and submissions made on behalf of the parties was changed by the CESTAT. There was no mistake apparent on record when the CESTAT did not accept a submission o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. 20. So far as judgment delivered in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi, 2008 (221) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.), is concerned, there also the Tribunal had not considered certain material which was very much on record and thereby it committed a mistake which was subsequently rectified by considering and appreciating the evidence which had not been considered earlier. As stated hereinabove, in the instant case, the position is absolutely different. 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal in the case of Atul Products Ltd vs. CCE Surat- 2016 (332) ELT 121 (Tri.-Ahmd.) upheld by the Hon ble Gujarat High reported in 2016 (332) ELT 97 . I find that the case of Atul Products supra is distinguishable in the instant case as in that case cited by the applicant demand on interest itself was made belatedly. 6. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of RDC Concrete (India) P. Ltd., I am of the view that the applicant is seeking reconsideration of the case which would tantamount to reopening and rehearing the matter in full which is impermissible and thus the ROM Petition is rejected. (Operative part of the order pronounced in open court on 8.9.2016) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
