Tribunal liberty to refile rectification applications cannot later be defeated by limitation.

Where a tribunal grants liberty to file a fresh rectification application, it must consider that application in accordance with the liberty already given and cannot later reject it as time-barred on a footing inconsistent with its own prior order. The Gujarat HC held that the CESTAT was not justified in dismissing the rectification applications as barred by limitation after permitting the appellants to withdraw earlier applications with leave to file fresh ones. The later applications were therefore maintainable, and the limitation-based refusal was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appellants' rectification applications as barred by limitation after it had granted liberty to file fresh applications for rectification of mistake.

Analysis: The Tribunal itself had permitted withdrawal of the earlier restoration applications with liberty to file fresh applications for rectification of mistake. The subsequent rectification applications were filed pursuant to that liberty. In such a situation, the Tribunal could not treat the applications as time-barred by applying limitation in a manner inconsistent with its own earlier order granting leave to file them. The later applications were required to be considered in the light of the liberty already granted by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the rectification applications on limitation was not justified and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The tax appeals succeeded on the admitted question of law, and the Tribunal's refusal to entertain the rectification applications on limitation was set aside in effect.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tribunal grants liberty to file a fresh rectification application, the application must be treated as maintainable in accordance with that liberty and cannot be rejected as time-barred on a footing inconsistent with the tribunal's own prior order.

---