TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 938
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....V. SUBBA RAO These two applications for rectification of mistake are filed by the appellants seeking rectification of an alleged mistake in the Final Order No. 51525-51526 /2023 dated 08/11/2023 whereby the appeals were decided on merits and were partly allowed and partly rejected. Neither the appellants nor the department pressed the question of jurisdiction nor made any submissions on it. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Final Order are reproduced below: These two appeals were originally remanded by this Tribunal by Final Order dated 21.6.2017 along with twenty more appeals to the original authority for a fresh decision in view of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Mangli Impex Ltd. vs UOI 2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del) setting aside the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tices [SCN] has not been argued nor are we examining it. 2. After the Final Order was passed, the appellants engaged a new counsel through whom these applications have been filed. The applications note that in paragraph 3 of the Final Order of this Tribunal dated 8.11.2023 it is recorded that the parties wanted to argue the matter on merits and the question of jurisdiction of the officer issuing the SCN was not argued. However, the applications state that the applicant who is a cancer patient for 17 years was not aware of the fact that the counsel for the applicant/appellant had foregone to raise the question of jurisdiction of the officer issuing the SCN. The application further states that in the absence of the decision of the Tribunal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al is allowed on the above terms along with the pending application". 4. Learned authorised representative for the Revenue opposes the applications and submits that this Tribunal had completely followed the aforesaid directions of the High Court. Insofar as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, it can only be passed based on the arguments and submissions made by both sides. Since neither side made submissions the question of jurisdiction and only argued the question on merits, it was decided accordingly. 5. We have considered the submissions on both sides and perused the records. We find that these applications seeking rectification of mistake are misconceived. The appellants were represented by a learned counsel who made submissions....