TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether a fourth application for rectification of mistake was maintainable, and (ii) whether the amounts deposited during the pendency of the appeals could be directed to be adjusted against the demand arising from the final order under the Tribunal's inherent powers.
Issue (i): whether a fourth application for rectification of mistake was maintainable.
Analysis: The application sought rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal noted that earlier rectification applications on the same subject had already been decided, and applied the Larger Bench ruling that a second application for rectification of an order rejecting rectification is not maintainable. Since the present request was a further rectification exercise on matters already dealt with, the application could not be entertained on the merits of rectification.
Conclusion: The rectification application was not maintainable and was rejected on that aspect.
Issue (ii): whether the amounts deposited during the pendency of the appeals could be directed to be adjusted against the demand arising from the final order under the Tribunal's inherent powers.
Analysis: The Tribunal accepted the legal position that duty amounts deposited during the pendency of an appeal should be adjusted against the demand confirmed in the final order. Treating the prayer in paragraph 8 as a miscellaneous application under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982, the Tribunal exercised its inherent jurisdiction and directed the lower authorities to consider the deposits and the appellant's submissions while computing the duty demand.
Conclusion: The prayer for adjustment of the deposited amounts was allowed and directions were issued for computation of the demand accordingly.
Final Conclusion: The request for further rectification failed, but the Tribunal granted relief to the extent of directing adjustment and verification of the amounts already deposited while working out the final duty demand.
Ratio Decidendi: A successive rectification application is not maintainable once the earlier rectification request has been decided, but the Tribunal may exercise inherent powers under Rule 41 to direct adjustment of pre-deposits against the demand confirmed by the final order.
TaxTMI 
