9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, ( the Tribunal ) in Misc. Order No.130/2012 in E/ROM/2010 in E/598/2002, dated 02.02.2012 rejecting the application filed by the appellant for rectification of mistake in the order dated 04.05.2010. 3. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, has pointed out that the appellant/assessee is essentially seeking to review the order passed by the Tribunal dated 04.05.2010 and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. 4. This appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law : "Whether the Tribunal is right in rejecting the rectification application filed by the appellant establishing the legal infirmity that Rule 9B of Central Excise Rules can no longer b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessees. However, for the reasons best known, the Assessee before us did not file any appeal against the said order. M/s.Velvette International Pharma Products Ltd., preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.2759 of 2010. The said appeal was partly allowed by the judgment dated 19.10.2011. 7. The Hon'ble Division Bench in paragraph 11 of the order remanded one of the questions, namely, the first substantial question of law, which has been framed for consideration, in the said appeal for decision of the Tribunal. The said question is as hereunder : "(1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the date of inspection has any bearing in deciding the period of limitation to issue show cause notice in a case covered by the first pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #39;ble Division Bench in C.M.A.No.2759 of 2010, the application for rectification at the instance of the appellant/assessee was pending before the Tribunal vide application dated 15.06.2010. It appears that it was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Division Bench, though the appeal was by the other Assessee. In our considered view, this should have been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Division Bench, because it is the case of both the Assessees that they are manufacturing the same product. The Hon'ble Division Bench having passed the judgement dated 19.10.2011 on the above lines, the Tribunal would have absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain an application for rectification, because the correctness of the order pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
