9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Appeal No. 50152 of 2020. 2. We have heard Shri Srinivas Kotni, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Girijesh Kumar, learned authorized representative for the department. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submitted that the impugned Final order of the Tribunal dated 03.10.2024 segregated the goods covered under the 7 Bills of Entries, as were dealt with in the said order into two categories. However, there has occurred inadvertent mistake in paragraph 14 of the said order, Tribunal concluded that the goods covered in Table One are the goods which are covered under the previous Bill of Entry dated 16.02.2018 as dealt with in previous Final Order of the Tribunal which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Tabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rb of the present application, learned counsel is seeking re-hearing in the matter. Learned authorized representative has also brought to the notice that learned counsel was not the counsel for the appellant at the time of the final hearing of the appeal. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta versus A.S.C.U. Ltd. - 2003 (151) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) has been referred and the present application is prayed to be dismissed. However, learned authorized representative has pointed out the typographical error which has occurred in paragraph 2 of the impugned final order that name of Shri Rajesh Singh has been mentioned instead of Shri Girijesh Kumar. Same is prayed to be replaced by Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be rectified is that it must be apparent from the record. 8. The perusal clarifies that the sole ground on which the Rectification of Mistake is allowed is that the error should be apparent form the record. This phrase for "mistake apparent from record" was earlier explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer versus Volkart Brothers - 1971 (2) SCC 526, wherein it was held that a debatable action of law cannot constitute a mistake apparent from the record on it two opinions are considerable. Such point cannot be said to be error apparent on the face of record. It further clarified that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and should not be something which has to be es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is aggrieved of a wrong comparison being arrived at by Commissioner (Appeals) in the order dated 31.10.2019. 10. The impugned Final Order No. 58770 of 2024 dated 03.10.2024 is in the appeal filed before this Tribunal assailing the said order-in-appeal dated 31.10.2019. Foremost the mistake pointed out i.e. the comparison of features of various goods cannot be appreciated without a long drawn process of reasoning and is a situation where two different views are possible. Consequently, the mistake pointed out is denied to be the error apparent in the present final order. As pointed out by learned authorized representative the Table One of Paragraph 14 is same as the one mentioned in the show cause notice. In view of these observations and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
