TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 470
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. Both sides have been heard. 3. Ld. Advocate Shri A.R. Madhav Rao, on behalf of the applicant, M/s Mittal Pigments Pvt. Ltd. inter alia submits as follows: (i) Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules 2002 starts with the wordings "Subject to provisions of Section 11AC..........", therefore, when penalty under Section 11 AC has been imposed, penalty under Rule 25 cannot be imposed. (ii) The demand is on the issue of non-receipt of the goods or inputs into the premises of the appellant and there is no demand on improper removal of excisable goods, so Rule 25 is not invokable. (iii) It is a settled principle that the removal of inputs or raw materials cannot be considered as removal of excisable goods under Rule 25. Reliance is placed on the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-heard and re-decided. Reliance is placed on Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Airport Authority of India Vs. CCE - 2015 (322) ELT A232(SC). 5. After having gone through the contents of the ROM application and the submissions of both the sides, it appears that there is no mistake apparent from the record in the Final Order requiring any rectification or amendment to the said Order passed by the Tribunal in this case. The applicant's submission is that the penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 is not warranted in the present case as certain penalties under Section 11 AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 have already been imposed on them. On the other hand, Revenue's submission is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atent or obvious mistake; only in a case where the mistake stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a case for rectification of mistake could be made out. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the case of CCE, Belapur, Mumbai Vs. RDC Concrete (India) P, Ltd. - 2011 (270) ELT 625 (SC) inter alia observes that a mistake apparent from the record cannot be something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case observes as follows : "21. This Court has decided in several cases that a mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and the mistake should not be such which can be established by a long drawn process ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcle IV, Bombay v. M/S. Volkart Brothers & Ors. - AIR 1971 (SC) 2204 (SC). A decision on a debatable point of law or facts is not a mistake apparent from the record and the debatable issue could not be the subject of an order of rectification. Rectification of mistake does not envisage the rectification of an alleged error of judgment. Rectification of mistake is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an order even if it is not valid, is re-heard and re-decided. Rectification of mistake application lies only for patent mistake. Only in a case where the mistake stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a case for rectification of mistake could be made out. The Hon'ble Supreme Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ord would be made out. No questions of fact were involved in the decision of the High Court in T.R. Cs 75 to 77 of 1956. The entire controversy turned on the proper interpretation of R. 18 (1) of the Turnover and Assessment Rules and the other pieces of legislation which are referred to by the High Court in its order of Feb., 1956; nor could it be doubted or disputed that these were substantial questions of law. In the circumstances therefore, the submission of the appellant that the order of September, 1959 was vitiated by "error apparent" of the kind envisaged by O.XLVII, R. 1, Civil Procedure Code when it stated that "no substantial question of law arose" appears to us to be clearly well founded. Indeed, Id. Counsel for the respondent di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... aggrieved party is to file appeal or review application. It implies that the Section cannot be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional, how erroneous that may be. It has been noticed that the courts below have been liberally construing and applying the province of Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC can under the cover of the aforesaid sections modify, alter or add to the terms of its original judgment, decree or order. In the instant case, the trial Court had specifically held the respondents State liable to pay future interest only despite the prayer of the appellant for grant of interest with effect from the date of alleged breach which impliedly meant that the Court had rejected the claim of the appellant in so far....