TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (5) TMI 283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)]. 2. M/s. Aura Oil Industries filed an Appeal No. E/3865/02 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. PKA/374/M-III/2002 dated 4-9-2002 and the Revenue filed an Appeal No. E/2511/03 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. PD/25/Th-II/2003 dated 28-5-2003. In the Revenue's appeal, M/s. Aura Oil Industries has also filed a cross-objection. While deciding the above appeals, this Tribunal passed the order as under - "In the absence of any contrary evidence to the factual findings of the adjudicating authority we find that the appellant has not made out a case. In view of these reasoning, we hold that impugned orders are correct and do not require any interference. Appeals are rejected. Cross-objection filed by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be said to be a "mistake apparent from the record" which could be rectified under Section 254(2). 41. A similar question came up for consideration before the High Court of Gujarat in Suhrid Geigy Limited v. Commissioner of Surtax, Gujarat, (1999) 237 ITR 834 (Guj.). It was held by the Division Bench of the High Court that if the point is covered by a decision of the Jurisdictional Court rendered prior or even subsequent to the order of rectification, it could be said to be "mistake apparent from the record" under Section 254(2) of the Act and could be corrected by the Tribunal." He also placed reliance on Stanlek Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-II reported in 2008 (229) E.L.T. 61 (Bom.) = 2009 (16) S.T.R. 682 (Bom.), wherein the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring that case the Tribunal was free to rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court. If in the opinion of the Tribunal, the two judgments of the Tribunal on which the Appellant was relying, were not relevant. The Tribunal could have said so in its judgment. In our opinion, the course adopted by the Tribunal, of even not referring to the judgments of the Tribunal of which the Appellant was relying, is not proper. In our opinion, it was for the Tribunal to point out, after considering the judgment of the Tribunal on which the Appellant was relying, how those judgments were not relied and how, according to the Tribunal, the matter is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court. 3. Taking over all view of the matter, in our opinion, the fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsidering the submissions made in detail by both the sides. In that situation, it cannot be termed that the decision cited by the learned Advocate for M/s. Auro Oil Industries was not considered by this Tribunal. He also pointed out that there was an error apparent on record since both the appeals were rejected as per the order. Only the appeal by M/s. Auro Oil Industries was rejected and appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed and cross-objection filed by the appellant was also disposed of. 5. Heard both sides. 6. We have gone through the order passed by this Tribunal and we find that while passing the order, the Tribunal had rejected both the appeals. The issue involved is one of valuation of soap cakes. The appeals had canvassed, ....