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>Tribunal clarifies limits on rectification requests, sets aside asset confiscation, clarifies interest payment</h1> <h3>GARDEN SILK MILLS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT-I</h3> GARDEN SILK MILLS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT-I - 2005 (179) E.L.T. 105 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues: Rectification of mistakes in the order; Reduction of penalty; Confiscation of assets; Payment of interest under Section 11AB.The judgment pertains to a Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of mistakes in an earlier order where the appeal was rejected, but the penalty was reduced from Rs. 50.00 lakhs to Rs. 35.00 lakhs. The appellant argued that the Tribunal incorrectly considered the quantity of finished texturised yarn in excess and imposed a cumulative penalty. However, the Tribunal found these arguments to be on the merits of the case and not apparent mistakes. Citing legal precedents, it was established that rectification is only permissible for patent and obvious mistakes, not for grounds of appeal. The Tribunal clarified that under the guise of rectification, a review of the order cannot be sought.Regarding the confiscation of assets and payment of interest under Section 11AB, the Tribunal noted that the earlier order did not address these points. In response to the advocate's contention, the Tribunal decided to add two paragraphs to the original order. The first new paragraph set aside the order of confiscation of land, building, plant, and machinery. The second new paragraph clarified that interest cannot be demanded for demands prior to the period when Section 11AB came into existence. The adjudicating authority was directed to quantify the interest while considering this legal position. Additionally, the Tribunal instructed that para 8 in the impugned order should be read as para 9. Ultimately, the application was disposed of accordingly, addressing the issues raised by the appellant regarding the confiscation of assets and the payment of interest under Section 11AB.
TaxTMI 