TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (12) TMI 103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ROM Application on merits. Though, the petitioner has made various other prayers seeking quashing and setting aside of the order made by CESTAT in appeal as well as the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Adjudicating Authority, it is not necessary to enter into the controversy on merits in light of the view that the Court is inclined to adopt. 2.Heard Mr. Paresh. M. Dave, learned Advocate for the petitioners. Rule. Mr. Malkan waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. The matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal today in light of the fact that the controversy lies in a very narrow compass. 3.The bare facts necessary for appreciating the controversy are such that the petitioner had taken over a p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the benefit under the Notification remanded the case for recalculating the value of the goods manufactured and as a consequence the duty payable. Thereupon on 16-7-2005 the petitioner made an application addressed to the Assistant Registrar, CESTAT for a certified copy of the order in appeal. 6.In the meantime, on 18-7-2005, representative of the petitioner obtained a photo copy of the order dated 16-10-2003 made by the Tribunal, from the office of respondent No. 3. Armed with the said copy, the petitioner moved a Rectification of Mistake Application on 5-8-2005. On 23-8-2005, the Technical Officer of CESTAT returned the application by stating "The R.O.M in the above mentioned matter has been filed by you after expiry of limitation perio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der of the Tribunal. That, though the petitioner-company shifted manufacturing unit after taking over the partnership firm, from Bayad to Ahmedabad, the petitioner had failed to intimate the change of address on the record of the Tribunal. Therefore, the Registry of the Tribunal had effected service at the address mentioned in the memorandum of appeal as required by CESTAT rules. He therefore, submitted that the petition was required to be rejected on this ground alone. 9.When the petition came up for hearing before this Court on 3-10-2005, after hearing the advocate for the petitioner, the Court issued notice with a direction to respondent No. 2 to place on record the details as to when and how the impugned order of Tribunal dated 16-10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt due; in the case of failure to effect service in the mode prescribed under clause (a), clause (b) stipulates that the same shall be done by affixing a copy thereof to some conspicuous part of the factory etc; and lastly, in the event of failure to effect service by the mode prescribed under clause (b) , clause (c) provides that the service be effected by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the officer or authority who or which made the order etc. Under sub-section (2) of Section 37C of the Act, a statutory presumption is provided wherein it is laid down that the service will be deemed to have been effected if the decision, order etc. is tendered or delivered by post or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner laid down in sub-s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ver, when one reads the latter portion of the provision, it becomes abundantly clear that the period of six months from the date of order is in relation to the power of rectification that the Tribunal may exercise suo motu. The Section is divided into two parts. The first part grants discretion to the Tribunal to take up any order made under sub Section (1) of Section 35C of the Act for rectifying any mistake apparent from record or amending any order within six months from the date of the order. The second part of the section requires that the Tribunal shall make such amendments if the mistake is brought to its notice by either party to the appeal before it. The party to the appeal can bring the fact of apparent mistake on record only afte....