TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SUPREME COURT ] was not available to the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. The delay in filing the Rectification of Mistake Application as the delay has been reasonably explained, is condoned - ROM application allowed. - Service Tax Rectification of Mistake Application No. 50767 of 2019 and Service Tax Condonation of Delay Application No. 50765 of 2019 in Service Tax Appeal No. 51273 of 2015 - MISC. ORDER NOs.50011 and 50012/2020 - Dated:- 9-1-2020 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri R. K. Sahu, Advocate for the appellant Shri R. K. Manjhi, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER This ROM application for rectification of mistake has been filed by the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Broadcasting. In reply, the Asstt. Commissioner has expressed his difficulty in processing the refund claim in absence of proper clarification of the Final Order by this Tribunal. Pursuant to the receipt of the letter dated 16.07.2019 from the Asstt. Commissioner, the appellant has filed the present application for rectification on 5.9.2019. Thus, there is no deliberate delay and latches on the part of the appellant in preferring this rectification with condonation application. He further prays for allowing the rectification application, being a typographical error and mistake apparent on the face of the record. 5. ld. Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue agrees that there is a typographical error on the face of the rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the assessing officer . 7. Analysing the above provisions, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sree Ayyanar Spg. Wvg. Mills Ltd. - 2008 17 SCC 203 held - analysing the above provisions, we are of the view that Section 254 (2) is in two parts. Under the first part, the Appellate Tribunal may, at any time, within four years from the date of the order rectify any mistake apparent from the record and the amend any order passed by it under sub-section ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the aggrieved party. Therefore, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-III v. Denso Kirloskar Industry Private Limited reported in 2008 (224) E.L.T. 207, wherein the Division Bench has held that, the application for rectification though filed in time, has not been disposed of within six months, same would become infructuous and no order can be passed after six months from the date of the order which is sought to be rectified, does not lay down the correct law and is required to be overruled. Accordingly, following the principles laid down in the Hon ble Supreme Court in Sree Ayyanar SPG. WVG. Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2008 (229) E.L.T. 164 (S.C.) = 2009 (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the question as to whether the said contentions are correct or not. 21 . For the aforementioned purpose the provisions of limitation specified in sub-section (2) of Section 129B of the Customs Act would not be attracted. We, however, do not mean to lay down a law that such an application can be filed at any time. If such an application is filed within a reasonable time and if the Court or Tribunal finds that the contention raised before it by the applicant is prima facie correct, in order to do justice, which is being above law, nothing fetters the judges hands from considering the matter on merit. 10. In view of the aforementioned rulings of the Apex Court, we find that the limitation was applicable to the Tribunal for taking su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
