2010 (7) TMI 292

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AT rejected the application filed by the appellant herein seeking rectification of the mistake in the final Order No. 216/2000-C dated 20.04.2000.   2. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that one of the issues which was initially involved in the case was regarding non-compliance of the requirement under Rule 194 read with Rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as also with the requirement of statutory form on the RG 16 Register which was specifically raised before the Collector of Central Excise.   3. It was further contended that although the said issue was taken before the Collector, Central Excise, it was not decided at any stage. According to the counsel for appellant, the said issue arises for consid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the said issue although raised before the Collector of Central Excise, was neither decided by the said authority nor was the same an issue before the Tribunal.   6. The order of the Tribunal which forms part of the record would show that such an issue was neither raised nor argued, and therefore, there is no such discussion in the said order.   7. The appellant filed an appeal before this court as against the initial order of the Tribunal and the said appeal was withdrawn on the ground that a review would be filed. The statute does not provide any remedy by way of review, and therefore, as against such order no review was permissible, and the appellant rightly filed an application seeking for rectification of mistake. &nbsp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1944. Such an application could be considered only if there is a mistake apparent on the face of record. As has been held by this Hon'ble Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta vs. ASCU Limited, Calcutta reported in (2003) 9 SCC 230, the scope of an application for rectification of mistake is very limited and restricted. 11. This Court has also held in Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., reported at (2003) 262 ITR 146 that:   "An error apparent on the face of record means an error which strikes on mere looking and does not need a long drawn out process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. Such error should not require any extraneous matter to s....