TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Rectification application seeking to correct Final Order dismissed for lack of errors; interpretation and compliance arguments rejected.</h1> <h3>WARYAM STEEL CASTINGS LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH-1</h3> The Tribunal dismissed the rectification application seeking to correct alleged mistakes in a Final Order related to the abatement of duty. The ... Rectification of Mistake - Annual capacity of production Issues:Rectification of mistakes in the Final Order regarding abatement of duty.Analysis:The applicants sought rectification of mistakes in the Final Order dismissing their appeal against the Commissioner of Central Excise's decision rejecting the claim of abatement of duty for a specific period. The alleged mistakes included the interpretation of the term 'factory' in Section 3(A)(3) and the contention that each furnace constituted a factory. They also argued non-compliance with Rule 96ZO(2) and the overlooking of relevant documents. Additionally, they claimed that a similar case had been remanded by the Tribunal, and the order of the Assistant Commissioner granting abatement was wrongly disregarded.The applicants reiterated these grounds during the hearing, emphasizing that the rectification should be allowed. However, the Respondent contested these grounds, asserting that they related to the case's merits, not any factual or legal errors apparent on the record. The Tribunal emphasized that the scope of rectification was limited and that seeking a recall for rehearing was impermissible. The Tribunal had already considered and rejected the grounds raised by the applicants in the final order. The interpretation of capacity determination rules and Section 3A(3) was deliberated upon, with the Tribunal not accepting the applicants' arguments regarding the definition of a factory. The Tribunal concluded that the grounds were debatable and had been previously addressed and dismissed, precluding reconsideration through rectification.Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the Final Order did not contain any evident mistakes of fact or law. Consequently, the rectification application was deemed not maintainable and was dismissed for lacking merit. The Tribunal clarified that even an incorrect application of the law did not warrant a recall through rectification, especially on debatable issues of facts and law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
