TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (12) TMI 87
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le to pay duty. 3. The Department filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). By an order dated 24th July, 1998 it was held that the respondents were manufacturing densified wood. It was further held that the respondents had not suppressed any material or mis-stated any fact and that therefore the extended period of limitation was not available to the Department. The matter was then remanded to the Commissioner for determination of the duty payable for the period of six months which was available to the Department. In passing the order dated 24th July, 1998, CEGAT relied upon, reports of Alipore Test House, Central Revenue Control Laboratory and Commercial Literature of the respondents. 4.&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er does not get invalidated. It is held that the exercise of the power under a wrong provision is error apparent on the face of the record. In our view, this judgment has no relevance and is of no assistance to the question before us. 7. This Court has in two judgments viz. T.S. Balaram, Income Tax Officer, Company Circle IV, Bombay v. M/s. Volkart Brothers, Bombay [1971 (2) SCC 526] and Commissioner of Income Tax (CNTL), Ludhiana v. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana [1997 (8) SCC 502] considered the extent to which power can be exercised under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Section 154 is pari materia to Section 35C(2). In both these decisions, it has been held that a mistake apparent on the face of the record must be an obvi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in the absence of these test reports, the Tribunal might have come to the same conclusion, but in my views reliance on the reports is an error apparent on the record and needs rectification.... .... The applicants in the garb of rectification of mistake cannot seek review of the Order...." 10. In spite of so observing, the Judicial Member held that as the Tribunal had relied upon the test reports, the order should be recalled and the appeal should be re-fixed for hearing. 11. As there was difference of opinion, the application was referred to a third member. The third member has concurred with the opinion of the Judicial Member. Therefore, by the final order dated 19th April, 1999, the earlier order dated 24th July, 1998 has ....