Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI • Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions • Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations • Issue-wise legal analysis • Practical arguments and supporting content • Professionally structured draft ready for further review.
Rectification of Mistake in Final Order for CENVAT Credit granted The Tribunal allowed the rectification of a mistake in the Final Order regarding CENVAT credit, where the word 'not' was inserted in para 82 to accurately ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Rectification of Mistake in Final Order for CENVAT Credit granted
The Tribunal allowed the rectification of a mistake in the Final Order regarding CENVAT credit, where the word "not" was inserted in para 82 to accurately reflect the conclusion. The appellant's plea concerning the non-supply of raw materials despite duty payment was deemed sustainable, and the correction was necessary. The rectification was pronounced in open Court on 04/07/2018, granting the appellant the CENVAT credit on raw material as per the corrected order.
Issues: Rectification of mistakes in Final Order No.20186 & 20187/2018 regarding CENVAT credit.
Analysis: The case involved a miscellaneous application for rectification of mistakes in the Final Order No.20186 & 20187/2018 dated 14/02/2018. The appeals were initially heard by a Division Bench of the Tribunal, resulting in a difference of opinion between the two members. Subsequently, the appeals were referred to the President for the constitution of a 3rd Member to resolve the matter. The 3rd Member, after hearing the case on 14/02/2018, concurred with the view of the Hon'ble Member (Judicial) and allowed the appeals with consequential reliefs. The issue in question revolved around CENVAT credit, with the Final Order stating that if duty is paid on finished goods, then CENVAT credit is allowable on raw material. The appellant had paid the duty and claimed CENVAT credit on raw material. The plea that only bills were raised and raw materials were never supplied was considered sustainable as the Department accepted the duty payment without objection. However, a discrepancy was identified in para 82 of the Final Order, where it was argued that the word "not" should precede the word "sustainable" to accurately reflect the conclusion. Both the appellant's counsel and the learned AR agreed that there was an error in the finding recorded in para 82, and the correction was deemed necessary. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the insertion of the word "not" in para 82 after the word 'is' and before the word 'sustainable' to rectify the apparent error. The rectification was pronounced in open Court on 04/07/2018.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
