TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d save as corrected in respect of typographical mistake about date which was recorded as 29/02/2014 - ROM application allowed. - ST/ROM/70054/2017, ST/70082/2016-ST[SM] - MO/70205/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 30-6-2017 - Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Nishant Mishra, Advocate, Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Superintendent (AR), ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present ROM Application bearing No.ST/ROM/70054/2017 has been filed in Appeal No.ST/70082/2016 by Revenue with a request to rectify mistake in Final Order No.A[70760-70761/2016-SM[BR] dated 31/08/2016. 2. Heard the Id. Departmental Representative, who has presented the said ROM Application. 3. Heard the Id. Counsel for M/s Contata Solutions Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /08/2014 are within the period of limitation. He has further submitted that in harmonious reading of both the above stated sentences it is very clear that the date mentioned as 29/02/2014 in Para 4 of the said Final Order dated 31/08/2016, is a typographical mistake and same may be ordered to be corrected. He has further submitted that in case of refund claim amounting to ₹ 4,19,552/- filed on 29/08/2014 (not 29/02/2014) for the quarter July, 2013 to September, 2013 were 24/07/2013 05/09/2013 and not 04/10/2013, 31/10/2013. He has further brought to the notice of this Tribunal the contents of Para 13 of said appeal memorandum bearing Appeal No. ST/70082/2016 that the appellant had received consideration in foreign exchange on the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there was no reason for the said Commissioner to make such false allegations against counsel of the party. 4. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, I allow correction of the date from 29/02/2014 to 29/08/2014 in last but one sentence of Para 4 of said Final Order No.A/170760-70761/2016 dated 31/08/2016. Further, I hold that all other contentions in the said Para 5 of the ROM Application are totally wrong when compared with the record as reflected in above stated Para 13 of Appeal memorandum so far as it related to allegations made against counsel and facts on record. I, therefore, hold that there was no mistake apparent of the facts on the face of record save as corrected in respect of typographic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
