TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 589
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order was beyond the time limit prescribed under the law? (c) Whether the time limit of 6 months stipulated in Section 129B(2) will apply only in a case where the Tribunal suo moto rectifying the mistake crept in an order, which is apparent from the record? 3 Heard forthwith finally by consent of the parties. 4 The Appellant has challenged impugned order dated 15.07.2017 passed by Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai. (for short, "the Tribunal") 5 The relevant facts are as under : Between October 1994 to September 1995, the Appellant has imported 8 consignments of capital goods. On 24.03.1998, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the Appellant demanding customs duty under Section 59 of the Customs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stake is bought to its notice by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs or the other party to the appeal: Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the other party shall not be made under this subsection, unless the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to him of its intention to do so and has allowed him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 7 Admittedly, the Appellant received the copy of order dated 9.1.2015. The Application for rectification was filed by the Appellant on 9.6.2015. The Tribunal, therefore, in view of the stated provision and the judgment so referred in the order, rejected the Application. That re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oundation to reject such Application so filed by the Appellant. Furthermore, referring to clause (a) of Section 37C of Central Excise Act, 1944, a judgment is delivered by the Gujarat High Court in Vadilal Industries Ltd v. Union of India 2006 (197) E.L.T. 160 (Guj.) . The following are the observations made in paras 14 and 15, in our view, support the case of the Appellant: "14 ... The Section is divided into two parts. The first part grants discretion to the Tribunal to take up any order made under sub Section (1) of Section 35C of the Act for rectifying any mistake apparent from record or amending any order within six months from the date of the order. The second part of the section requires that the Tribunal shall make such amendments ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant in view of the above background which was admittedly within six months, the rejection order passed in the present case, is unacceptable. It renders the party remedyless for their no fault. This amounts to dismissal of appeal without hearing on merits. 10 We have gone through the provisions and related provisions where it is noted that there is no power and/or remedy available and/or no provision for condonation of delay in filing such Application for rectification. In the absence of any such provision, we are of the view that the second part of the Section need to be read in the interest of the Appellant. The Application so filed after receipt of the order serve the purpose and object of the Application for rectification. Th....