TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 250
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Writ Petition No.16624/2010 to decide the controversy involved therein. 2. The petitioner-Company has filed the Writ petition No.16624/2010 along with bunch of Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Order-In-Original dated 29.03.2010 passed by the Respondent No.3- Assistant Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Satna and common Order-In-Appeal dated 30.09.2010 passed by the Respondent No.2- Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhopal (M.P.) rejecting the Appeal No.145/BPL/2010 filed by the petitioner-Company. Facts of the case, in short, are as follows :- 3. The petitioner- Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1994 read with Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to be paid forthwith and also directed to pay interest under Section 11AB of the said Rules, 2004. Apart from it, a penalty of Rs.2000/- was also imposed on the petitioner-Company under Rule 15 of the said Rules, 2004. 6. Being aggrieved by the Order-In-Original dated 29.03.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Satna, the petitioner-Company preferred an appeal on 20.07.2010 alongwith an application for stay before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhopal (M.P.), raising the ground that it is eligible for the input services. Apart from it, while filing the appeal, the petitioner- Compa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 9. Shri Avinash Zargar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgments passed by the Apex Court in the cases of "Collector of Customs Vs. Hindustan Motors Ltd [(2000) 10 SCC 465]" and "The property Company (P) Ltd. Vs. Rohinten Daddy Mazda [(2026) LiveLaw SC 19]" as also the judgment passed by this Court in the case of "AI Sadhik Haj Tour Organizers Vs. Commissioner of Custom, CGST & Central Excise, Jabalpur [(2022) SCC OnLine MP 6079]". 10. Shri Siddharth Seth, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of "Singh Enterprises Vs, Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur (2008) 3 SCC 70 ", "Amcon Tea Estate Vs. Union of Ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accordingly, the benefit conferred therein cannot be called in aid to supplement the provisions of the Act. 13. The applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act has to be judged not from the terms of the Limitation Act, 1963, but by the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as held in paragraphs 16, 17 and 21 of the judgement of "Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Hongo India Private Limited and Another [(2009) 4 SCR 1197] " passed by the the Supreme Court of India, they are reproduced below for ready reference and convenience :- "16. The other decision relied on by the counsel for the appellant is M.V. Elisabeth and Others vs. Harwan Investment and Trading Pvt. Ltd., Hanoekar House, Swatontapeth, Vasco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e High Court as a court of record, as envisaged in Article 215 of the Constitution, must have inherent powers to correct the records. A court of record envelops all such powers whose acts and proceedings are to be enrolled in a perpetual memorial and testimony. A court of record is undoubtedly a superior court which is itself competent to determine the scope of its jurisdiction. The High Court, as a court of record, has a duty to itself to keep all its records correctly and in accordance with law. Hence, the High Court has not only power, but a duty to correct any apparent error in respect of any order passed by it. This is the plenary power of the High Court. In para 17 of the abovementioned decision, it was held : "17. If such po....