TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (2) TMI 544
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeared on behalf of the applicants and Smt. Sudha Koka, the learned SDR, appeared for the Revenue. 3. We heard both sides. 4. The learned Advocate stated that the Final Order passed by this Bench has not considered all the submissions made in the appeal/synopsis during the hearing held on 23-8-2007. It has been stated that in the worst scenario, the duty liability would be only to the order of Rs. 1,01,364/- for M/s. Sapthagiri Cements and Rs. 1,20,270/- for M/s. Srinivasa Cements. They have also stated that if the third party purchases are not allowed for deduction, the net liability will be only Rs. 12,80,461/- for M/s. Sapthagiri Cements and Rs. 13,41,124/- for M/s. Srinivasa Cements, as per the work sheets submitted by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntion to the principles laid down regarding allowing of rectification of mistake. In particular, they have pointed out the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Deva Metal Powders Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, UP - 2008 (221) E.L.T. 16 (S.C.) = 2008 (9) S.T.R. 113 (S.C.) wherein it has been emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a mistake which is patent and which is obvious and whose discovery is not dependent on argument or elaboration could be rectified and such a power of rectification is not confined to clerical or arithmetical mistake but the same should be self evident and patent thereof. In the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi - 2008 (221) E.L.T. 11 (S.C.) = 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uit Mart - 1993 (199) ITR 771 (All.) (e) Popular Jewellers v. CCE - 1991 (52) E.L.T. 399 (T.-Del.) 4.2 It was stated that the impugned OIO traverses beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice and this pleading of the appellant has not been considered by the Tribunal. Our attention was invited to para 11 and 12 of the synopsis given regarding the figures arrived at. 5. On the other hand, the learned SDR stated that the Final Order has considered all the factors into consideration and has upheld the Order of the original Authority. It was pointed out that the capacity of both the Units was mentioned as 50 MT per day in the Show Cause Notice dated 13-6-2003. Correspondingly, the annual capacity of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding in a desolate place like Ksheersagaram, etc. Entries made in the Log Books were identified by the Millers. Payments made to their personal accounts were also certified by the buyers in the statements recorded. Taking all these evidences into account, the Tribunal has confirmed the production figures arrived at in the impugned OIO. It was also pleaded that the Commissioner has already given a finding with regard to the clandestine production which has been endorsed by the Tribunal in para 7.4 of the Final Order. The Commissioner has held "there is record in the log book, there is record of the 'In and Out Register', there is record of loading and these records show the actual removals. Thus, their difference that the sales alleged as un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to be rectified. The Tribunal is expected to examine the legality and sustainability of the impugned Order-in-Original. In para 7 of the Final Order, we have reproduced all the incriminating documents based on which the Commissioner has confirmed the demands. The said documents indeed contain precise information on the alleged clandestine production and clearances. On careful consideration of the evidences, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the demand confirmed is sustainable. If the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts correctly, it cannot be said that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. 6.1 On a very careful consideration, we find that the Tribunal has given elaborate reasoning for upholding the OIO.....