TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1577
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ups, ointments, etc and is availing area based exemption under Notification No. 50/2003 dated 10.06.2003. For the purpose, two conditions have to be fulfilled. First, the unit has to be established in the geographical area mentioned in the Notification. Secondly, the unit has to manufacture those excisable goods which are not prohibited in the Notification that too under declaration to the Department. In the present case, the first clearance of goods was made by the appellant on 30.12.2009 in terms of the said Notification. However, due to inadvertence, the applicant did not file the declaration with the respondent Department. But, he voluntarily filed the declaration on 30.05.2013 alongwith the returns declaring the date of exercising opti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew of Section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944, the Section reads as follows: "35C. Orders of Appellate Tribunal - (1) ------ (2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within [six months] from the date of the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) and shall make such amendments if the mistake is brought to its notice by the [Principal Commissioner of Central Excise or Commissioner of Central Excise] or the other party to the appeal: Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the other party, shall not e made under this subsection, unless the Appellate Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... effect. Irrespective of the Adjudicating Authority has decided it in favour of the Department, it still is a debatable issue. The aggrieved party has a remedy to take this debate to a higher forum, but the same cannot be considered as an error apparent on record. I draw my support from the case Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. Vs. Jindal Exports 2001 (6) SCC 356. The Larger Bench in the case of Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Vs. C.C.E. Vadodara 2000 (122) E.L.T. 282 has held that a subsequent proceeding is not a ground for reopening a concluded proceeding and passing fresh Order. "No Bench can comment on the functioning of a co-ordinate Bench of the same Court, much less sit in judgment as an appellate Court over its decision. That which c....