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>Revenue's rectification applications dismissed for lack of merit; Bench upholds original order post-amendment.</h1> <h3>ACME CERAMICS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT</h3> ACME CERAMICS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT - 2014 (304) E.L.T. 588 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues Involved:Rectification of errors in the final order dated 12-12-2013 regarding redetermination of RSP post-amendment to Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Detailed Analysis:1. Rectification of Errors by Revenue:The Special Counsel for the Revenue argued that there were mistakes apparent in the final order dated 12-12-2013, specifically regarding the redetermination of 'RSP' and the drawing of adverse inferences. He pointed out discrepancies in the factual matrix and cited relevant case laws to support the need for rectification.2. Respondent's Argument:The respondent's counsel contended that the Revenue's applications were attempting to reargue the entire matter, which was impermissible. Citing the decision in the RDC Concrete case, it was argued that rectification of mistakes cannot be done through re-appreciation of evidence. The respondent emphasized that the observations made by the Bench were based on specific proceedings before the Tribunal.3. Bench's Evaluation:After considering both parties' submissions and reviewing the applications for rectification of mistakes, the Bench found that the Revenue's applications lacked merit for dismissal on multiple grounds. Firstly, the Bench noted that the Revenue was trying to reargue the cases, which was not permissible as per legal precedents. Secondly, the Bench clarified that the observations in the final order regarding contrary views by the Tribunal were in reference to specific cases related to redetermination of RSP post-amendment to Section 4A. The Bench highlighted that the legal position was correctly stated based on previous judgments and the facts of the cases at hand.4. Legal Provisions and Judicial Pronouncements:The Bench emphasized that the final order was based on the legal provisions applicable during the relevant period and followed the judicial pronouncements of a Co-ordinate Bench. It was held that prior to a certain date, RSP could not be redetermined, and the factual matrix was analyzed based on the evidence presented.5. Dismissal of Applications:Ultimately, the Bench concluded that the Revenue's applications for rectification of mistakes were devoid of merit and dismissed them. The matter was clarified to be decided based on existing legal provisions and factual evidence, with any aggrieved party advised to seek remedies in a higher judicial forum.In conclusion, the Bench upheld the original final order dated 12-12-2013 and dismissed the Revenue's applications for rectification of mistakes, emphasizing the importance of legal provisions, judicial precedents, and proper avenues for addressing grievances.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
