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 denies appellant's request to recall final order citing legal principles</h1> <h3>SIDDHI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS P. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF S.T. -II, MUMBAI</h3> SIDDHI PROPERTY DEVELOPERS P. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF S.T. -II, MUMBAI - 2019 (370) E.L.T. 1466 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Application for recall of final order based on alleged errors in the order.Analysis:The appellant filed a miscellaneous application seeking the recall of the final order dated 10-7-2018, which dismissed their appeal. The applicant argued that errors existed in the final order, specifically in paras 6 and 11, where it was mentioned that certain grounds were not pressed during the hearing. The appellant contended that they had indeed raised these grounds, as detailed in their appeal memo and supported by an affidavit from their Chartered Accountant. The applicant requested the order to be recalled for correction of these alleged mistakes.During the hearing, the appellant's counsel cited various decisions to support their argument for recalling the order. However, the Authorized Representative for the Revenue argued that there were no apparent errors on record warranting a recall. The Revenue representative emphasized that the scope of rectification is limited to correcting obvious errors and not for reviewing previous findings.The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties and reviewed the application along with the order and submissions made during the hearing. The Tribunal noted that while the appellant claimed to have raised additional points during the appeal, no evidence was presented to support this claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the rectification of mistake application is intended to correct errors apparent from the record and not to serve as a review mechanism for the Tribunal's own order.The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court judgment to highlight that rectification cannot be based on re-appreciation of evidence or revisiting debatable points of law. The Tribunal concluded that the decisions cited by the appellant did not support their case for recalling the order. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the application for recalling the order and dismissed the application based on the principles outlined in the Supreme Court judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
