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>Rectification of Stay Order to Reflect Applicant's Business Activities Accurately</h1> <h3>P.S. Construction Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH rectified a mistake in a stay order by substituting incorrect references to construction related to dams with the ... Rectification of mistake - Held that: - We find that it was a mistake apparent on record and the words in Paras 2, 3 and 5 of the stay order mentioned as “He further argued that a lot of construction has been done by them which was of the nature of construction of dams and related activity' instead of “He further argued that the applicant is engaged in the commercial and industrial construction service as well as educational charitable institute.” - ROM allowed - decided in favor of applicant. Issues: Rectification of mistake in a stay orderIn this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH, the issue involved was the rectification of a mistake in a stay order dated 27-5-2016. The applicant had filed an application seeking rectification of the stay order, which directed them to make a pre-deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs.The learned Counsel for the applicant contended that there was an error in the stay order regarding the nature of construction activities undertaken by the applicant. The stay order incorrectly mentioned that a lot of construction had been done by the applicant related to dams, whereas the applicant was engaged in commercial, industrial construction services, and educational/charitable institutes. The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake apparent on record and corrected the order to reflect the accurate nature of the applicant's activities.After hearing the arguments and examining the stay order, the Tribunal found that the mention of construction related to dams and related activities was incorrect. The Tribunal rectified the mistake by substituting the incorrect phrases in Paragraphs 2, 3, and 5 of the stay order with the accurate description of the applicant's activities as commercial and industrial construction services along with educational/charitable institutes.Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the rectification of mistake application. The applicant's compliance with the stay order was noted, and the rectified version of the stay order was upheld. The rectification was made to ensure that the order accurately reflected the nature of the applicant's business activities and to rectify the error in the initial order.In conclusion, the Tribunal rectified the mistake in the stay order to accurately reflect the nature of the applicant's activities. The rectification was granted based on the error apparent on record, and the corrected version of the stay order was upheld, acknowledging the applicant's compliance with the original order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
