TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1747X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bliteration of order originally passed and its substitution by a new order. Where an error is far from self evident and is not confined to clerical or arithmetical mistake, it ceases to be an error apparent on records. What the appellant is seeking in the present case, is the reversal of the conclusion already arrived at by the Tribunal, which can be changed only by long drawn process of argument by both the sides. As such, it cannot be said that the error pointed out by the learned Advocate is an error apparent on the face of the records. It was not a mistake on the part of the Bench but it was a mistake on the part of the litigant, for which there is no scope of any rectification provided under the Act - ROM Application rejected. - S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy exercised his option to pay duty under the composite scheme. However, he fairly agrees with the said decision of the Calcutta High Court was not placed before the Bench and submits that failure on the part of the assessee to bring it to the notice of the Bench, a particular decision, is a sufficient cause for rectification of mistake. 3. We have also heard learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue who submits that the appellant is seeking the review of the order under the garb of rectification of mistake application which is not permissible. As such, he prays for rejection of the ROM application. 4. After carefully considering the submissions made by both the sides, we find that the issue of applicability of rat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s considered the same elaborately and has come to a clear finding that the ongoing works contract would attract the higher rate of duty with effect from 1.3.2008. The appellant s contention now that Calcutta High Court decision was not taken into consideration, even though the same was not placed before the Bench, cannot be appreciated. The reliance on the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai - 2006 (202) EKLT 177 (Tri.-LB) laying down that non-consideration of a decision on the issue would be an error apparent from the records requiring rectification is not applicable to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the Calcutta High Court decision, which the applicant now seeks to rely upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. A mistake which can be rectified is the one which is patent and is obvious and whose discovery is not dependent on argument or elaboration. Rectification of an order does not mean obliteration of order originally passed and its substitution by a new order. Where an error is far from self evident and is not confined to clerical or arithmetical mistake, it ceases to be an error apparent on records. What the appellant is seeking in the present case, is the reversal of the conclusion already arrived at by the Tribunal, which can be changed only by long drawn process of argument by both the sides. As such, it cannot be said that the error pointed out by the learned Advocate is an error apparent on the face of the records. 7. We also furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
