2020 (3) TMI 736

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....se Act, 1944. 2. We have heard the parties, it is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the issue involved in the present case was with respect to the entitlement of appellant for SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003, dated 1st March, 2003 for the period 2006-2007 along with the allegation of clandestine removal of goods. It is submitted that vide the impugned final order, this Tribunal while accepting the department's plea, has denied the said benefit of SSI exemption notification to the applicant's appeal. It is mentioned that the Tribunal, while arriving at the said decision, has wrongly interpreted the statements of Shri Fakruddin Agarbattiwala and Shri Rajesh Mangal, one of the Directors of the appellant. The other mat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the issue involved in the present case was with respect to the entitlement of appellant for SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003, dated 1st March, 2003 for the period 2006-2007 along with the allegation of clandestine removal of goods. It is submitted that vide the impugned final order, this Tribunal while accepting the department's plea, has denied the said benefit of SSI exemption notification to the applicant appeal. It is mentioned that the Tribunal, while arriving at the said decision, has wrongly interpreted the statements of Shri Fakruddin Agarbattiwala, Shri Rajesh Mangal, one of the Directors of the appellant and the other material evidences have not been considered by the Tribunal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h. It is observed that there is no mention in the said statement about goods to have been received without paying the duty as otherwise has been observed in the final order. Since the decision is based on these two statements and it is observed that statements have not correctly been considered. We are of the opinion that the error is such which is definitely apparent on record. 7. Section 35C(2) of CESTAT Rules confers power upon the Appellate Tribunal to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. The said section is reproduced below : "35C(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 unde....