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.
CESTAT Mumbai: Restoration Application Disposed, Rectification Application Dismissed. No Delay Found. The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai disposed of two miscellaneous applications by M/s Ajay Bio-Tech (India) Ltd. The restoration application was found to ...
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.
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai disposed of two miscellaneous applications by M/s Ajay Bio-Tech (India) Ltd. The restoration application was found to have no delay and was disposed of, while the rectification application seeking to rectify a mistake in the Final Order dated 28.05.2018 was dismissed. The Tribunal determined that there was no merit in rectifying the alleged mistake as the issues had already been considered in the Final Order. The order was pronounced on 11.09.2020.
Issues: 1. Restoration of appeal and rectification of mistake in the Final Order dated 28.05.2018 by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai.
Analysis: The judgment by Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai dealt with two miscellaneous applications filed by M/s Ajay Bio-Tech (India) Ltd. The first application sought restoration of appeal and the second one sought rectification of mistake in the Final Order No. A/86733/2018 dated 28.05.2018. The applicant/respondent filed the restoration application as a precaution due to anticipated delay in filing. The Tribunal found no delay in filing the restoration application as the appeal was initially filed before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and later withdrawn with liberty to file a rectification application before the Tribunal. Consequently, the restoration application was disposed of.
Regarding the second application for rectification of mistake in the Final Order dated 28.05.2018, the Tribunal noted that the submissions made in the application were already considered in the Final Order. Specifically, the Tribunal had observed in paragraph 5 of the Final Order that during the disputed period of 2005-06, the respondent did not refund the disputed duty amount to its buyers. This observation was based on an examination of relevant documents, including invoices, during the appeal hearing. The Tribunal concluded that there was no apparent mistake in the order that warranted rectification. Therefore, the application for rectification of mistake was dismissed.
In conclusion, both miscellaneous applications filed by the applicant/respondent were disposed of by the Tribunal. The restoration application was found to have no delay and was thus disposed of, while the rectification application was dismissed as the Tribunal determined that there was no merit in rectifying the alleged mistake in the Final Order dated 28.05.2018. The order was pronounced in open court on 11.09.2020.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
