TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 820
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he show cause notice or in the three orders of adjudication. (ii) That this Tribunal did not consider the fact that demand of interest at the appellate stage is barred by limitation. (iii) That the various facts and case laws placed on record by the applicant in respect of above contentions was not considered in the final order. 2. Applicant was represented by Mr. Janardanan Pillai, Consultant and Department was represented by Shri L. Paneerselvam, A.C., Ld.A.R. 3. Heard both sides. 4. I have carefully gone through the records and submissions made by the applicant. The main grievance raised by the applicant is that there was no specific demand for interest in the adjudicating orders and it was raised only in the appellate sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lue of the goods manufactured by the assessee was considered to be just and proper. However, after considering the submissions made in pursuance of the rectification application, the CESTAT came to a different conclusion to the effect that the assessee company and the buyer of the goods were not inter-connected companies. Different conclusions were arrived at by the CESTAT because it reappreciated the evidence in relation to common directors among the companies and inter se holding of shares by the companies. Re-appreciation of evidence on a debatable point cannot be said to be rectification of mistake apparent on record. 17. Similarly, in pursuance of the rectifying application, the CESTAT came to the conclusion that an officer of the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. So far as the judgment delivered in the matter of Saci Allied Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut, 2005 (183) E.L.T. 225 (S.C.) is concerned, it pertains to sale of goods by an assessee to an independent and unrelated dealers and its effect on valuation. The said judgment pertains to a transaction with a related person in the State of U.P., at lower price and as such deals with the facts of that particular case. In our opinion, the said judgment would not help the respondent so far as the matter pertaining to rectification is concerned. 19. So far as the judgment delivered in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Bharat Bijlee Limited, (supra) is concerned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnot be such which can be ascertained by a long drawn process of reasoning. Similarly, this Court has decided in ITO v. Ashok Textiles, 41 ITR 732 that while rectifying a mistake, an erroneous view of law or a debatable point cannot be decided. Moreover, incorrect application of law can also not be corrected. 22. For the aforestated reasons, we are of the view that the CESTAT exceeded its powers and it tried to re-appreciate the evidence and it reconsidered its legal view taken earlier in pursuance of a rectification application. In our opinion, the CESTAT could not have done so while exercising its powers under Section 35C(2) of the Act, and, therefore, the impugned order passed in pursuance of the rectification application is bad in la....