TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the earlier order rejecting the rectification application as time barred required recall in view of the liberty granted by the High Court. (ii) Whether the rectification application could be used to reconsider the applicability of Rule 6(3)(a)(vi) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 in addition to Rule 6(1) and Rule 6(2).
Issue (i): Whether the earlier order rejecting the rectification application as time barred required recall in view of the liberty granted by the High Court.
Analysis: The High Court permitted withdrawal of the appeal with liberty to move the Tribunal for appropriate reliefs. On that basis, the earlier order rejecting the rectification application as time barred was recalled.
Conclusion: The objection of limitation was set aside and the earlier rejection order was recalled.
Issue (ii): Whether the rectification application could be used to reconsider the applicability of Rule 6(3)(a)(vi) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 in addition to Rule 6(1) and Rule 6(2).
Analysis: Rectification is confined to a mistake apparent on the record. A patent and obvious mistake may be corrected, but a debatable issue or an alleged incorrect application of law cannot be examined through rectification. The grievance that Rule 6(3)(a)(vi) was not considered would require a substantive reappraisal and not mere correction of an apparent mistake.
Conclusion: The request to consider Rule 6(3)(a)(vi) in rectification was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The rectification application did not disclose a permissible apparent error warranting interference on merits, and was ultimately dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: Rectification jurisdiction is limited to correcting an obvious and patent mistake apparent from the record and cannot be invoked to revisit a debatable issue or an alleged incorrect application of law.
TaxTMI 
