TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (4) TMI 136
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal, West Regional Bench at Mumbai (for short "the Tribunal") has filed the present appeal. By the impugned order the Tribunal has accepted the application filed by the respondent under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act') seeking rectification of its earlier order dated 3-6-1996 passed in the same appeal on the ground that there was a factual mistake apparent o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en the purchase order of the ultimate buyer to the dealer and supply by the respondent to the dealer and the supply in turn to the ultimate buyers were shown. 3. The Tribunal in the impugned order has held that the dealer had in fact produced evidence to show that the non-standard motors were produced by the respondent on the specific orders placed by the dealers duly supported by documents showi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the present case was not there. According to the learned counsel for the Revenue the Tribunal erred with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta v. ASCU Limited, Calcutta, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 230. In the said case this Court took the view that the scope of correction which can b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assing the earlier order; that the Tribunal had not considered the material evidence produced by the respondent to show the difference between the standard type of electric motors manufactured by the respondent and other motors described as non-standard motors, where were manufactured according to the specific requirement of the customers to whom they were to be ultimately supplied. 6. After goin....