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 appeal restoration bid due to filing delay and legal correctness</h1> <h3>SA PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SILIGURI</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata rejected the Appellants' Miscellaneous Application seeking restoration of their Appeal due to a filing delay. The ... Condonation of delay - Rectification of mistakes versus review of order - The power to rectify mistake, which has been interpreted to mean error apparent on the face of record, has been outlined in the statute under Section 35C(2) of the Act - held that:- the relief that the Appellants are seeking through this Rectification Application is not rectification of any apparent error, but review of the decision taken by another Bench of the Tribunal in its Order dated 11-6-08 to consciously follow the ratio of the Larger Bench of the Jurisdictional Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in preference to the decision of the Tribunal’s Larger Bench. In our considered view, judicial discipline requires that a Bench of the Tribunal should follow the ratio of the decision of a Superior Court in preference to the decision of a lower Court or Tribunal and therefore, in our view, the Order passed by the Tribunal on 11-6-2008 is correct and legal. - application for rectification of mistake rejected. The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Kolkata heard a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Appellants seeking restoration of their Appeal, which was rejected due to a delay in filing. The Appellants argued that the Tribunal had erred in dismissing their Appeal and not following the decision of a Larger Bench. The Department contended that the Tribunal's Order did not contain any mistake and could not be rectified. The Tribunal found that it did not have the power to rectify the earlier Order and that the decision taken was correct and legal. The Tribunal rejected the Appellants' application, stating that they could not review the Order of another Bench and that the Order had been passed correctly following the decision of the Larger Bench of the Jurisdictional High Court. The application was therefore rejected on 8-6-2009.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
