TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 736
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oved under Section 35C of the Central Excise 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f C. Ex., Ahmedabad - 2009 (234) E.L.T. 539. 4. 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 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said invoices, it is mentioned that the same used to be received by cheque as well as by cash. 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 or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me can be rectified by any of the nodes as mentioned in the aforesaid Section 35C of CESTAT Rules. 9. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deva Metal Powders Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. reported in 2008 (221) E.L.T. 16 (S.C.) has held that a mistake capable of being rectified can't be confined nearly to a clerical or arithmetical mistake as it has a different connotation in Taxation Laws and is mostly subjective. The dividing line is thin and indiscernible. It, however, is something which a duly and judiciously instructed mind can find out from the record. 10. Keeping in view the above discussed provision and the case law and applying the same to the above observation with respect to the impugned order, we are of....