TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification application. The scope of application for rectification of mistake is very limited to correct errors apparent from record and in garb of rectification tribunal cannot recall and review its own order. There are no merits in the application for recalling the order - application for recall of order dismissed. - Misc. Application No. ST/ROM/86725/2018 in Appeal No. ST/86115/2015 - Misc. Order No. M/85497/2019-WZB - Dated:- 28-6-2019 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (J) and Shri Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (T) Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri D.M. Shinde, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent. ORDER This miscellaneous application C/ROM/86725/2018 has been filed by the applicant, appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for recall of the order. 5. We have heard Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate for the applicant and Shri D.M. Shinde, Assistant Commissioner, Authorized Representative for the Revenue. 6. Arguing for the applicant Learned Counsel stated that as stated by them in their rectification of mistake application, certain errors apparent on record have crept in the order and hence the order needs to be recalled for the purpose of correcting these mistakes. He relied upon the following decisions to support his request for recall of the order and listing the same rectification of mistakes as pointed [out] in their appeal memo: Chiripal Twisting Sizing Pvt. Ltd., [2007 (8) S.T.R. 445 (Guj.)] Suresh Jumani, [2007 (207) E.L.T. (Tri.-Mum.)] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aise in this application for recall of the order cannot be considered as error apparent from the records as the no record in form of any written submission or document filed by the appellant at time of hearing has been shown which shows that they have pressed for the other grounds. Once the appeal has been considered and finding recorded then because the finding recorded is adverse to the applicant, then the same cannot be ground for rectification application. In case of Saheli Leasing and Industries [2010 (253) E.L.T. 705 (S.C.)] Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly stated that It should always be kept in mind that nothing should be written in the judgment/order, which may not be germane to the facts of the case; It should have a co-relatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 respondent-assessee sold its goods was an inter-connected company. In the circumstances, according to the CESTAT, the decision of the department to appoint a Cost Accountant to ascertain value of the goods manufactured by the assessee was considered to be just and proper. However, after considering the submissions made in pursuance of the rectification application, the CESTAT came to a different conclusion to the effect that the assessee company and the buyer of the goods were not inter-connected companies. Different conclusions were ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 of the respondent-assessee to the effect that the officer appointed to value the goods manufactured by assessee should not have been engaged as a cost accountant. 18. We are not impressed by the judgments cited by the Learned Counsel for the respondent. So far as the judgment delivered in the matter of Saci Allied Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut, 2005 (183) E.L.T. 225 (S.C.) is concerned, it pertains to sale of goods by an assessee to an independent and unrelated dealers and its effect on valuation. The said judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. BaIram v. M/s. Volkart Brothers (supra), this Court has already decided that power to rectify a mistake should be exercised when the mistake is a patent one and should be quite obvious. As stated hereinabove, the mistake cannot be such which can be ascertained by a long drawn process of reasoning. Similarly, this Court has decided in ITO v. Ashok Textiles, 41 ITR 732 that while rectifying a mistake, an erroneous view of law or a debatable point cannot be decided. Moreover, incorrect application of law can also not be corrected. 22. For the aforestated reasons, we ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
