2023 (5) TMI 1332

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....half of the Appellant stated that the Adjudicating authority passed the Impugned Order by travelling beyond the Show Cause Notice. The fact of usage of machines was brought on record only during the course of visit of the factory by the adjudicating authority subsequent to issue of the notice. However, the Impugned Order confirmed the demand on the ground that the Appellants were using machines for the purpose of stitching and hence travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice. The fact of not disclosing the usage would not amount to suppression of fact and hence extended period should not have been invoked to demand the duty. In the above said Final order, Tribunal also confirmed the demands and imposed penalty on the same grounds. He s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r-I v. Champdani Indus. Ltd. [2009 (241) ELT 481 (SC)] d. CCE v. Gas Authority of India Ltd [2008 (232) ELT 7 (SC)] e. Opto Circuit India Ltd. v. Axis Bank & Ors. - Supreme Court [Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2021 - Judgement dtd. 03.02.2021] 4. The Authorized Representative for the department stated that the Adjudicating authority as well as the Tribunal has examined the issue and has given a clear finding regarding the merits of the case as well as the reasons for invocation of extended period. He stated that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited above has been referred and discussed by the Adjudicating authority as well as the Tribunal. The decision taken after considering all these facts can only be challenged by way of an ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of the issue of limitation can be rectified by means of ROM Application. The relevant para of the decision is reproduced below: "9. We have considered the rival submissions. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 35C(2) of the Act is to rectify mistakes apparent from the record i.e. the mistake must be obvious and self-evident. The discovery of mistakes must not require a long process of reasoning. The question whether there is a mistake in the order sought to be rectified or not should not be a subject of debate. Once a mistake is brought to the notice of the Tribunal, it is duty bound to correct the mistake in its order, where an issue has been argued and/or submission made on the issue and the same is not recorded and/or cons....