2020 (7) TMI 292

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion of delay application against the Final Order No.ST/A/53031 -2018 -Cus (DB) dated 13.09.2018. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant points out that this Tribunal vide final order has been pleased to allow the appeal in favour of the appellant setting aside the full demand and tax along with consequential reliefs. However, in para-7 of the Final order, there is a typographical error, wherein sentence -"Accordingly, we set aside the tax demand of Rs. 1,10,40,683/- along with interest and penalty confirmed in the impugned order against the appellant." 3. In this line in para-7 mistakenly the aforementioned figure is mentioned instead of the correct amount of Rs. 4,10,40,683/-. Accordingly, the same needs to be corrected. 4. Pursuant to the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ressed doubt as to the powers of this Tribunal to condone the delay in filing of the rectification mistake beyond the period of six months from the date of receipt of the final order. He further relies on the ruling of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Indore - 2002 (139) ELT 48. He further points out that the said decision of the Larger Bench was further appealed before the Apex Court in Civil Appeals Nos.183-186/2013, which was dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits by order dated 7.1.2003 reported at 2016 (342) ELT 828 (SC). 6. In reply to the contention of the Revenue, ld. Counsel for the appellant states the Section 35 C of the Central Excise Act, which p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dment of the order passed by the Tribunal under sub-section (1) when the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the assessing officer. Therefore, in short, the first part of the Section 254(2) refers to the suo moto exercise of the powers of rectification by the Tribunal whereas the second part refers to rectification and amendment on an application being made by the assessing officer or the assessee pointing out the mistake apparent from the record. 8. The aforementioned ruling of the Apex Court was followed in the matter of Central Excise by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in J.K. Tyres and Industries Ltd. Vs. ACCE, Mysore -II - 2011 (266) ELT 163 (Karnataka Full Bench), wherein the High Court held as follows:- 11. In vie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is Court in Commissioner of Central Excise Bangalore-III v. Denso Kirloskar Industry Private Limited - 2008 (224) E.L.T. 207 does not lay down the correct law and the same is overruled. 9. Further, reliance is placed on the ruling of the Apex Court in Sunitadevi Singhania Hospital Trust Vs. Union of India -2009 (233) ELT 295 (SC), wherein the similar pari materia provisions of Section 129 (B)(2) of Customs Act, 1962 was considered and the Hon'ble Court held as follows:- 19. It is true that the period of limitation specified in terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 129(B) of the Customs Act is required to be observed but the Tribunal failed to notice that it has inherent power of recalling its own order if sufficient cause is shown therefor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for rectification of mistake at any time, but showing the reasons for causing the delay, that there has been injustice done to them due to error in the order of this Tribunal. We further notice that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sunita Devi Singhania Hospital Trust (Supra) was not available to the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. Therefore, that decision of the Larger Bench cannot be followed in view of the ruling of the Apex Court, which has not been distinguished. We further, find that the affirmation of the order of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of National Engineering Industries Ltd. (supra) has been disposed of by a non-speaking order by the Apex Court and thus the same cannot be held to be a binding prece....