TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 1142
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt filed an application no.50379/2020 seeking rectification of alleged mistakes, which application was disposed of by this Miscellaneous order no. MO/50519-50520/2022 dated 30.9.2022 along with another application for Rectification of Mistake filed by the Revenue. Both applications were dismissed. The relevant portion of this miscellaneous order insofar as it pertained to the application filed by the assessee is as follows: 2. In E/ROM/50379 of 2020 filed by the assessee rectification of two alleged mistakes has been sought :- (a) No finding has been recorded on the appellant's submission contesting imposition of 100% penalty under section 11AC read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002; (b) No finding has been recorded in the al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on inputs used was not considered. We do not find any provision in the Act or Rules by which the duty can be determined after deducting the Cenvat credit which may be available on the inputs as claimed by the assessee. Of course, if duty is payable, the assessee will be entitled to cenvat credit as per the Cenvat Credit Rules and may also able to use the cenvat credit to pay the duty. This, of course, will be subject to verification of the availability of cenvat credit as per the rules. 2. This second miscellaneous application has been filed by the appellant seeking rectification of alleged mistakes in the miscellaneous order dated 30.9.2022. It is stated in this application as follows: " 4. That the Hon'ble Tribunal in the above para ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....leased to consider the submissions made in the applicant in ground B .... and correct the mistake apparent from record by noting the correct facts (demand pertains to normal period of limitation) and pass suitable order." 3. Learned authorised representative for the Revenue submits that there is no error apparent on record in the miscellaneous order passed by this Tribunal. 4. We have heard learned consultant for the appellant and learned authorised representative and perused the records. 5. In the appeal of the appellant, paragraph 3 of the Statement of Facts, reads as follows: 3. DISPUTE: The disputes that survive after the O-in-Odated 25/3/3019 (passed in remand proceedings) are as under: A. Whether the Ld. Adjudicating Authority ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he irregularity during the audit of the records of the appellant iii. That the appellant suppressed the material fact from the department b willful misstatement; iv. Extended period of limitation is invokable; v. The material information had been concealed from the department by the appellant willfully, deliberately, consciously and purposefully with the intent to evade payment of duty; vi. The appellant has deliberately not followed the Valuation Rules with intent to evade payment of duty; .......... 7. As is evident from above, in the appeal, the appellant contested the impugned order on three grounds- (a) that it was eligible to the benefit of the exemption notification; (b) extended period of limitation was wrongly invoked in....