TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion should only be the cumulative effect of all the arguments. The normal principle of law is that once a judgment is pronounced or order is made by the court, Tribunal or adjudicating authority, it becomes functus officio and hence cannot re-decide the matter in the light of fresh arguments - The points advanced in the ROM are those which require re-appraisal of the evidence and law which is not allowed by way of rectification of mistake. ROM application dismissed. - ST/ROM/51665, 51666/2016, ST/876/2010 & ST/52839/2014-ST[DB] - MO/50583-50584/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 18-8-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Judicial Member And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Present Shri J.K. Mittal, Advocate for the appellant Present Shri Govi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 011 which was the subject matter of second appeal no.ST/52839/2014 does survive beyond the normal time limit under section 73 of the Finance Act 1974. But no findings have been recorded with reference to the pleas of time bar raised with respect to first show cause notice dated 26.05.2009. During the course of arguments of the case before the Tribunal on 18.08.2016 as well as in para 7(h) of the written submissions it has been argued that there was no suppression of facts even in respect of first show cause notice. ii) It had been argued (also included in written submissions para 7 (i)) that once the show cause notice is issued for the longer period invoking the suppression clause, and it is found that the extended period of limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner Income Tax Vs Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange reported as 2008 (230) ELT 385 (SC) and argued that only a patent, manifest and self evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish error, can be said to be an error apparent on the face of record and can be corrected. The alleged errors as point out by the Ld. counsel for the applicant, evidently are in the form of pre-appraisal of the evidence in the case which cannot be permitted at the stage of ROM. 6. We have heard both sides and perused the record. 7. Through the present ROM, it has been argued that several material facts covered by the SCN were not considered by the Tribunal while passin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b of rectification, review of the order already passed is not permissible as has been held by the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Praja Tantra Samithi Vs CIT 264 ITR 160 (Oris). 10. The normal principle of law is that once a judgment is pronounced or order is made by the court, Tribunal or adjudicating authority, it becomes functus officio and hence cannot re-decide the matter in the light of fresh arguments. The Apex Court in the case of Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange (Supra) has also specifically held that only those errors can be corrected which are patent, manifest and self evident and which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish it. 11. The points advanced in the ROM are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
