1998 (7) TMI 649

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pplication before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Indore and therefore, the application was not time barred. In the result, the Tribunal remanded the case to the Collector (Appeals) for decision on merits. 2. The ROM application submits that the subject matter of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was an application filed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 44. Admittedly the application was filed beyond the time limit prescribed in Section 35E(4) and the Collector has rejected the application on the ground of time bar. The ROM application contends that there was no provision in Section 35E or any other Section of the Central Excise Act for condonation of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ake note of explanation to Rule and failure to take note of the fact that a provision had been given retrospective effect, are mistakes apparent from the record and the Tribunal was competent to correct such mistakes. Shri Sridharan submitted that legal position with regard to correction of mistakes are comparable under the Income Tax Law as well as Central Excise Law and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments should be followed by the CEGAT also. 4. Ld. SDR Shri A.K. Madan submitted that Section 35E(4) specifically states that an application filed under sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) shall be heard by the appellate authority as if such application were an appeal made against the decision or order of th....