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

A FINAL ORDER PASSED ON MERITS CANNOT BE RECALLED

Central Excise - By: - Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN - Dated:- 5-12-2017 Last Replied Date:- 6-12-2017 - Rectification of mistake Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ( Act for short) provides that the Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within six months from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under section 35(1) and shall make such amendments, if the mistake is brought to its notice by the Commissioner of Central .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l error, or when a submission going to the root of the case was not considered or decided. But only on the ground that the appeal was to be heard with another appeal. This has been confirmed in the following case law- In Ahmedabad Packaging Industries Limited V. Union of India - 2017 (8) TMI 596 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT the petitioner is engaged in manufacture of HDPE tapes, which are excisable goods.The raw materials used by the petitioner are HDPE granules. A dispute was there between petitioner 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

er Chapter 39 of the Tariff. Therefore the petitioner filed refund of the duty which was sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner, but he ordered to transfer the same to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the ground of unjust enrichment. Against this order the petitioner filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal holding that the refund claim was not hit by doctrine of unjust enrichment. The Revenue refunded the amount. The Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tune of ₹ 44,28,444/- in view of section 11BB of the Central Excise Act for interest on delayed refund. This amount has also been paid to the petitioner. Against the order of sanctioning the refund, the Revenue filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the same. The Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals). On the application of the petitioner, the Tribunal granted a stay order on recovery of the interest paid to the petitioner. This matter was .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

recovery of amount of interest on delayed refund was the subject matter of the previous appeal wherein stay on merits was allowed and directed the Registry to connect this subsequent appeal with the earlier appeal for disposal. The Tribunal heard the earlier appeal and allowed the appeal of the petitioner on merits by delivering a detailed judgment by holding that the petitioner was legally entitled to interest on delayed refund in view of section 11BB of the Act. The subsequent appeal was not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

peal should be recalled because the subsequent appeal was not listed together for disposal. The Tribunal recalled the order of earlier appeal which is decided in favor of the petitioner and directed to list both the appeals together on 26.07.2017. The petitioner against this order filed a writ petition before the High Court. Before the High Court the only challenge is the order passed by the Tribunal 14.06.2017 2017 (6) TMI 1160 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD in application in purported exercise of power un .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lier appeal had been disposed of on merits vide order dated 29.09.2016 which was absolutely just and proper order and non hearing of the subsequent appeal together could not have given any cause of action whatsoever for filing or moving an application under section 35C(2) of the Act. The Tribunal could not have embarked upon the exercise of examining the order and recalling the same on erroneous pleadings of so called mistake, which could not have been attributed to Tribunal at all. The impugned .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r apparent on the face of the record would clothe the Tribunal with a power to review and recall an order and therefore the order dated 08.08.2011 was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal while passing order on 29.09.2016 and therefore, to the extent the same was erroneous when the error was rectified and order of Tribunal was recalled, there was no mistake whatsoever, which was giving any rise to file a petition under section 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court analyzed 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

cuous lacking in the statutory provision of the Act. The High Court further held that if there was any error apparent in deciding the appeal and the final order called for any correct because of a typographical or clerical error or the like; then further orders could made by the Appellate Tribunal correcting such error in exercise of power conferred under section 35C(2). But when there was no error in rendering the final order on merits after hearing both the parties and it was not even the case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| 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