2016 (3) TMI 803

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ocate For the Respondent : Shri N. Satwani, Authorised Representative ORDER PER : MR. P.K.DAS; The applicant filed this application for rectification of mistake in Final Order No. A/11694/2015 dated 06/11/2015. 2. The Learned Advocate on behalf of the applicant submits that the Tribunal while passing the order had not considered the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gautam Weavi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of mistake should be a technical nature. He further submits that the Tribunal has given a finding on both the issues. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, the relevant portion of the Final Order Dated 06.11.2015 is reproduced below:- "6. The Learned Advocate relied upon the various decisions. In the case of Vimal Enterprises (Supra) the period of dispute is July 1994....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant would not apply in the present case. 7. The Learned Advocate contented that the demand is barred by limitation. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the appellant filed monthly return during the relevant period. There is no material available that the appellant had disclosed the endorsed invoices to the Dept. There is no evidence that the Central Excise officers were aware of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the decision of the Gautam Weaving Mills (supra). Regarding the limitation, the Tribunal had recorded the submission of the Learned Advocate in the final order. It is seen that the Tribunal had rejected the submission of the Learned Advocate on the ground that the Central Excise audit officers during the verification of the records detected the irregular availment of the Cenvat Credit. Hence, the ....