TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 823
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty from the appropriate implementing agency under the Schemes of 1983, 1988 and 1993. Under the 1983 Scheme for the original pilot plant, the Petitioner was granted an eligibility/entitlement certificate for the period from 14 March 1986 to 13 March 1993. According to the Petitioner, for expansion of the plant under the 1988 Scheme eligibility/entitlement certificate was granted for the period 16 April 1996 to 15 April 2004 and for expansion under the 1993 Scheme, it was for the period between 1 February 1999 to 31 March 2011. The Appellant was assessed for the period mentioned above up to 31 March 2000 under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Petitioner requested the Assessing Authority not to apply the prorate method for determining tax liability as, according to the Petitioner, there was no expansion in respect of the entitlement certificate granted for the period from 16 April 1996 to 15 April 2004. The Respondent treated the unit post-period 1993 as an expansion unit. The contention of the Petitioner not to apply the pro-rata basis was rejected. 3. Being aggrieved by the action of the Respondents denying full exemption in respect of tax deter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orders. 6. By order dated 26 March 2010, while issuing Rule, the Tribunal was directed not to proceed further in respect of remanded proceedings. 7. We have heard Mr Nawaz Haindaday, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms Jyoti Chavan, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended as follows. The exercise of power by the Tribunal under Section 62 of the Act is entirely incorrect as the said provision is only for the rectification of mistakes apparent on record and not to be exercised as a full-fledged review or as a substitute for an appeal. The foundation of the rectification application that the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the tribunal and the judgment of the this court has been incorrectly applied are grounds to be urged in the Appeal and not in an application under Section 62 of the Act. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon decisions of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2007) 295 ITR 466 (SC) and Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur, Mumbai Vs. RDC Concrete (India) Private Limited (2011) 12 SCC 166. The learned counsel f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Central Excise, Belapur after taking review of the earlier decisions on the subject, the Honorable Supreme Court observed thus: 21. This Court has decided in several cases that a mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and the mistake should not be such which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning. In T.S. Balaram v Volkart Bros. (1971) 2 SCC 526 this Court has already decided that power to rectify a mistake should be exercised when the mistake is a patent one and should be quite obvious. As stated hereinabove, the mistake cannot be such which can be ascertained by a long-drawn process of reasoning. Similarly, this Court has decided in ITO v. Asok Textiles Ltd AIR 1961 SC 699 that while rectifying a mistake, an erroneous view of law or a debatable point cannot be decided. Moreover, incorrect application of law can also not be corrected." Thus, the 'mistake apparent from the record' has to be obvious and patent mistake and not the one that needs to be established by long drawn process of reasoning. 11. In the decision of Honda Siel the Honorable Supreme Court has analysed the scope of power of rectification under Section 254(2) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice is attributable to the Tribunal's mistake, error or omission and which error is a manifest error then the Tribunal would be justified in rectifying its mistake, which had been done in the present case." (emphasis supplied) 12. Keeping this scope of Section 62 in mind we now turn to the observation made by the Tribunal when it disposed of the Appeals by the First Order. The Tribunal referred to the factual aspects, arguments of both sides and thereafter referred to the decision of Pee Vee Textiles. In paragraph 22 and 23 of the First Order the Tribunal reproduced the observation of this Court in Pee Vee Textiles and held as under: "25. It is pertinent to note that these observations made were not only with reference to 1993 scheme but it was applicable to incentives by different classes of dealers under different schemes and which included 1988 scheme also. It is an admitted fact that the government has not prescribed any rules under the provisions of section 41BB as on today as confirmed by the representative for Revenue. Considering this aspect it is required to be held that in absence of any rules providing pro-rata admissibility of sales tax incentives the appellant is e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of this Court in Pee Vee Textiles Limited before applying the law to the case of the Petitioner. Apart from there two grounds, no other ground was raised. 14. As to the first ground in the Rectification application that the the Tribunal did not consider the decision in the case of Balkrishna Industries Ltd., nowhere in the application nor in the reply filed in this petition the Respondent has categorically asserted that the decision of Balkrishna Industries Ltd. was placed before the Tribunal when the First Order was passed. According to the Petitioner, the decision of Balkrishna Industries Ltd., even otherwise, arises from different factual situations relating to the differential method of taxation and is not applicable. It is not necessary for us to comment as to the implication of the decision in Balkrishna Industries Ltd. As we will have to proceed that this decision was not placed before the Tribunal, and therefore it cannot be considered that there was a mistake committed by the Tribunal on this count for which parties should not suffer. 15. As regards the second ground in the rectification application based on the decision of Pee Vee Textiles, the learned Assistant Governm....