TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 774
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... para 6.2 of the order, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Madras Rubber Factory - 1987 (27) ELT 553 (SC); this judgment has been specifically overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the subsequent judgment reported in 1995 (77) ELT 433 (SC). Therefore, there is an error in para 6.2 where it has been stated that "the said view was reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the subsequent judgment delivered in May, 1995". Since an overruled judgment has been relied upon, the same is a good ground for rectification of mistake apparent on the face of the record. (ii) The second mistake pointed out is that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Maruti Suzuki - 2010 (257) ELT 226....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e conclusion drawn relying upon these statements are also incorrect. (v) The findings of the Tribunal in paras 5.7 and 5.15 that the discount is not uniform is an apparent mistake and the learned Counsel wants to submit a tabular chart to show that the discounts have been passed on uniformly to the customers. It is also argued that the cash discount is eligible for deduction as the same is not linked with the car off-take target and is uniform throughout country and these discounts were known to the dealers much prior to the removal. It is also pointed out that the observation of the Tribunal that if the appellant did not know the quantum of discount passed on at the time of removal , they should have followed the prin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (SC)] in support of his contentions. 3. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 3.1 As regards the mistake pointed out in respect of the MRF judgment in para 6.2 of the final order, we notice that there is an error committed by this Tribunal. Therefore, we rectify the same as follows: In para 6.2 for the sentence, "the said view was reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a subsequent judgment delivered in May, 1995.", the sentence "However, the said view was overruled by Hon'ble Apex Court in its subsequent judgment delivered in May, 1995.", shall be substituted. However, this rectification will not warrant any change in the view which we have taken. For the discount to b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edly or otherwise. We have in the impugned order also observed that the decision of the Larger bench in the Maruti Suzuki case is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has refused to grant stay against the said decision. It is in this context, we have relied on the ratio of the Maruti Suzuki decision. In these circumstances, we reject the contention made by the appellant in this regard. 3.3 As regards the mistake pointed out regarding the reliance placed on the Auto Lamp case, it is not in dispute that the Auto Lamp case has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The said decision has been relied upon in the impugned order for two purposes. In para 5.4 where the decision has been reproduced, the said deci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rary is clearly untenable. 3.5 As regards the reliance placed on the statements of a few dealers, the entire issue has been examined at length in para 5.9, 5.10, 5.11 and 5.14 of the impugned order. In these paragraphs, the statements given by various categories of people, dealers, officials of the appellant firm, Regional Managers of the appellant firm and dealership agreement have been examined at length and based on these evidences available on record, it has been concluded that there was no prior intimation of discount to the various dealers and the entire discount was determined in an arbitrary fashion. 4. At the rectification of mistake stage, we cannot re-appreciate the evidence available on record. As held by the Hon'ble A....