TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rejects Rectification Of Mistake (ROM) application challenging duty liability in Export Oriented Unit</h1> The Tribunal rejected the Rectification Of Mistake (ROM) application under Section 35(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by M/s. Grapco Granites Ltd., ... Rectification of mistake Issues:Rectification Of Mistake (ROM) under Section 35(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Captive consumption and central excise duty liability for 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU).Analysis:The case involved an application for Rectification Of Mistake (ROM) under Section 35(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by M/s. Grapco Granites Ltd. challenging the Tribunal's Final Order. The appellant argued that no central excise duty was payable by a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) for goods used captively, as duty could only be demanded upon sale of goods, not for captive consumption. The appellant cited legal precedents to support their argument. In response, it was contended that duty was leviable on captive consumption unless specifically exempted, and the benefit of exemption applied only to exports. The Tribunal had previously held that captive consumption was to be treated as if the goods were sold in India. The Tribunal found that all relevant issues had been elaborately dealt with in the previous order and rejected the ROM application, stating that the basic thesis of the order could not be challenged through rectification. The Tribunal further stated that the scope of the ROM application was limited by the provisions of the law, and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, found no merit in the ROM application, ultimately rejecting it.The Tribunal emphasized that the ROM application could not be used to challenge the fundamental basis of the original order and that all relevant aspects had been considered in the initial decision. Despite the legal precedents cited by the appellant, the Tribunal found them inapplicable to the present case. The decision highlighted the limited scope of rectification under the law and the importance of considering all relevant factors before seeking a revision of the original order. The judgment ultimately concluded that the ROM application lacked merit and was therefore rejected.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
