2011 (1) TMI 300

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sing to raise following substantial questions of law:-   A. Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal erred in dismissing the Rectification Application moved by the Appellant as not maintainable?   B. Whether the order passed by the ld. CESTAT can be said to have merged with the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court during preliminary hearing without notice to the Respondent and without a detailed hearing on merits?   C. Whether the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayamed vs State of Kerala does not operate in a different sphere from the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.J.S. Chawla vs State of Punjab?   D. Whether the contentions raised in the Application for Rectification whi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application for rectification under Section 35C(2) of the Act. It was submitted that necessary details in relation to necessary invoices was furnished to the adjudicating authority for claiming Cenvat Credit and this issue was specifically raised before the Tribunal but the said documents were not considered and thus, there was error apparent on the face of records. The Tribunal after duly considering the application for rectification, held that appeal of the appellant having been dismissed, the issue could not be gone into again, as held in Abhai Maligai Partnership Firm v. K. Santhakumaran 1998 (7) SCC 386 (SC). It was further observed that there was nothing to show that....