Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, after the Tribunal had passed its final order, the appellant could seek Modvat credit through a miscellaneous application when no such plea had been taken in the appeal and no error apparent on the face of the record was shown.
Analysis: The proceedings had attained finality after the final order was passed, and they could not be reopened except for an error apparent on the face of the record. A rectification application on the same matter had already been rejected. The plea for Modvat credit had not been taken in the appeal or synopsis, and the earlier decisions relied upon were distinguishable because, in those cases, the claim had been raised at the appellate stage. Since the present application sought to introduce a fresh claim after disposal of the appeal, the Tribunal had no basis to entertain it.
Conclusion: The miscellaneous application was not maintainable and was rejected against the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The decision affirms the finality of concluded appellate proceedings and holds that a fresh Modvat credit claim cannot be introduced through a miscellaneous application after disposal of the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: Once an appeal has been finally decided, a fresh substantive claim not raised in the appeal cannot be entertained in a miscellaneous application unless an error apparent on the face of the record is demonstrated.