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 rejects modification application due to delay in filing, no grounds for interference</h1> <h3>COMMR. OF C. EX., GURGAON Versus SUN VACCUM FORMERS PVT. LTD.</h3> COMMR. OF C. EX., GURGAON Versus SUN VACCUM FORMERS PVT. LTD. - 2009 (243) E.L.T. 394 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Modification of the Tribunal's order dated 4-2-2008 in Excise Appeal No. 2416/07.2. Time limitation for filing an application seeking modification.3. Condonation of delay in filing the application.4. Grounds justifying interference in the Tribunal's order.5. Authority to rectify errors in the order.6. Approach to the High Court and its outcome.Analysis:1. Modification of Tribunal's Order:The applicant sought modification of the order dated 4-2-2008 passed by the Tribunal in Excise Appeal No. 2416/07. The contention was regarding the recording in the order that 'moulds and dies were received back in the factory and respondents availed the credit within six months from the date of payment of duty.'2. Time Limitation for Filing Application:The appellant argued that there was no specific period prescribed for availing the credit and it should have been taken within a reasonable time, not necessarily within six months. However, the application for modification was filed on 15-5-2009, beyond the six-month limit for filing such applications.3. Condonation of Delay:There was no application for condonation of delay filed by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that the statutory period for initiating action cannot be extended, and the discretionary power to condone delay lies with the Tribunal. The application filed beyond the limitation period was considered barred by law.4. Grounds for Interference in Tribunal's Order:The Tribunal stated that the grounds disclosed for modification of the order were not sufficient to justify interference. It was noted that if there was a mistake in the order, the appellate authority could rectify it based on the assessment of materials on record. The Tribunal clarified that modification could only be made in case of an error apparent from the record.5. Authority to Rectify Errors:The Tribunal highlighted that errors apparent from the record could be subject to modification by the appellate authority. In this case, since there was no such error apparent from the record, the question of modifying the order did not arise.6. Approach to the High Court:The applicant had approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against the impugned order but was unsuccessful. The Tribunal expressed surprise at the discrepancy between the grounds presented before the High Court and those stated in the application for modification. The Tribunal found no merit in the case for modifying the order and subsequently dismissed the application.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the application for modification of the order dated 4-2-2008, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory time limits and the need for sufficient grounds to justify interference in the Tribunal's orders.
TaxTMI 