TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 569
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... By the Final Order No A/86866/2018 dated 10-7-2018, we had dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant upholding the impugned order under challenge in appeal. 3. In the present application, applicant has sought for recall of the final order, and listing the appeal for disposal again, by pointing various apparent errors in the order which are as listed below: (a) In para 6 of the Final Order dated 10-7-2018 recorded the finding that "Learned Counsel for the appellant did not press any other ground taken by him in the appeal during the course of hearing. Hence the issue is being decided vis-a-vis the notice issued under Section 73 in this case." (b) In para 11 again it has been ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m.)] * Senor Metal Pvt. Ltd., [2015 (329) E.L.T. 428 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] 7. Arguing for the Revenue, Learned Authorized Representative submitted that there seems to be no error apparent on record. He pointed out the scope of application made for rectification is limited only to correct the errors apparent and is not for reviewing the findings recorded by the Bench in earlier order. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of RDC Concrete [2011 (270) E.L.T. 625 (S.C.)] and submitted that the application needs to be rejected as the application is for review of the order and not for correcting the errors apparent on record. 8. We have considered the application filed along with the order dated 10-7-2018 and the submission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decidendi should be clearly spelt out from the judgment/order." The scope of application for rectification of mistake is very limited to correct errors apparent from record and in garb of rectification tribunal cannot recall and review its own order. 11. The decisions referred to by the applicant, do not advance the case of the applicant for recall of the order. It is settled law that an application for rectification cannot be application seeking the review of Tribunals' own order. In case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur v. RDC Concrete (Pvt) Ltd., [2011 (270) E.L.T. 625 (S.C.)], Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows : "16. Upon perusal of both the orders viz. earlier order dated 4th November, 2008 and order dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ciated 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 department, who was working as Assistant Director (Cost) and who was also a Member of an Institute of Cost and Works Accountants was not competent as a Cost Accountant to ascertain value of the goods. It is strange as to why the CESTAT came to the conclusion that it was necessary that the person appointed as a Cost Accountant should be in practice. We do not see any reason as to how the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elated 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, this Court held therein that when the Tribunal had totally failed to take into consideration something which was on record, the Tribunal had committed a mistake apparent on the face of the record. In the instant case, the evidence which was on record was duly appreciated by the Tribunal at the first instance but the Tribunal made an effort to re-appreciate the evidence and re-a....