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 denies rectification request, upholds disallowance of credit due to fraud</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the rectification application seeking to delete a finding portion and amend the appellant's name in the final order. The Tribunal ... Rectification of mistake Issues:Rectification of final order by deleting a finding portion and amending the name of the appellant/assessee.Analysis:The rectification application sought to delete a finding portion from Paragraph 5 of the final order and amend the name of the appellant/assessee. The counsel for the applicant admitted that the mistake in the name occurred before the Commissioner and was maintained in the appeal filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found no mistake in the name of the appellant as it was provided by the appellant themselves and remained consistent with the Commissioner's order.Regarding the alleged mistake in Paragraph 5 of the final order, the Tribunal examined the contention and found it devoid of substance. The Tribunal's order in Paragraph 5 upheld the disallowance of cenvat credit based on specific findings by the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner's order highlighted that the party had taken modvat credit without physically receiving the goods, as confirmed by the statement of the proprietor of the supplying entity. The Commissioner (Appeals) also dismissed the appeal, confirming the findings of the Additional Commissioner related to fraudulent practices by the appellant.The Tribunal affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower authorities, rejecting the applicant's attempt to re-evaluate evidence through a rectification application. The Tribunal clarified that rectification cannot be sought based on a different view taken in a subsequent judgment unless a mistake is apparent on the face of the order. The application under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act was deemed misconceived and rejected by the Tribunal.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the rectification application, emphasizing that rectification cannot be based on differing views in subsequent judgments and must be grounded in a clear mistake apparent from the record of the decision.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
