SRF Ltd. v. CCE - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(EX) 405 2019 (367) E.L.T. 457 SRF Ltd. v. CCE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944 --Order of Appellate Tribunal --Rectification of mistakePower of the Appellate Tribunal to rectify any mistake apparent from the record----Exemption Notification dated 6-9-1995 would be applicable with effect from 1-3-1994 as it was only for a brief period from 1-3-1994 to 6-9-1995 and an Exemption Notification had not been issued. Exemption Notification should be treated as clarifactory with retrospective effect. Division Bench accepted the contention advanced by assessee that the benefit of the said Exemption Notification would be available from 1-3-1994.--Assessee, sought for exemption by way of Exemption Notification, non-virgin polychips from levy of service tax that would be effective from 1-3-1994 and not 6-9-1995 in view of an earlier decision of Tribunal in Commr. of Central Excise, Trichy v. Supreme Industries Ltd. 2008 (225) E.L.T. 509 (Tri. - Chennai) : 2008 TaxPub(EX)1132. It had also submitted that this decision was included in compilation provided by assessee to the Bench and, therefore, non-consideration of a judgment directly concerning an issue raised in appeal would amount to an error apparent from the record so as to call for rectification of the mistake. *Held:* Both words 'mistake' and 'apparent' have been explained by Supreme Court in Deva Metal Powders (P) Ltd. v. Commr., Trade Tax (UP), 2008 (221) E.L.T. 16 (SC):2008TaxPub(EX)28, in as much as that 'mistake' means to take or understand wrongly or inaccurately or to make an error in interpreting and 'apparent' means visible, capable of being seen. Notification would be applicable with effect from 1-3-1994 as it was only for a brief period from 1-3-1994 to 6-9-1995 and an Exemption Notification had not been issued. It was sought to be submitted that this void was inconsistent with the Government policy and, therefore, the Exemption Notification should be treated as clarifactory with retrospective effect. Division Bench accepted the contention advanced by assessee that the benefit of Exemption Notification would be available from 1-3-1994. Mistake that had crept in the Final Order by granting benefit of the Exemption Notification from 6-9-1995, instead of from 1-3-1994 needed to be rectified. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(EX) 405 2019 (367) E.L.T. 457

SRF Ltd. v. CCE

CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944

--Order of Appellate Tribunal --Rectification of mistakePower of the Appellate Tribunal to rectify any mistake apparent from the record----Exemption Notification dated 6-9-1995 would be applicable with effect from 1-3-1994 as it was only for a brief period from 1-3-1994 to 6-9-1995 and an Exemption Notification had not been issued. Exemption Notification should be treated as clarifactory with retrospective effect. Division Bench accepted the contention advanced by assessee that the benefit of the said Exemption Notification would be available from 1-3-1994.--Assessee, sought for exemption by way of Exemption Notification, non-virgin polychips from levy of service tax that would be effective from 1-3-1994 and not 6-9-1995 in view of an earlier decision of Tribunal in Commr. of Central Excise, Trichy v. Supreme Industries Ltd. 2008 (225) E.L.T. 509 (Tri. - Chennai) : 2008 TaxPub(EX)1132. It had also submitted that this decision was included in compilation provided by assessee to the Bench and, therefore, non-consideration of a judgment directly concerning an issue raised in appeal would amount to an error apparent from the record so as to call for rectification of the mistake. Held: Both words 'mistake' and 'apparent' have been explained by Supreme Court in Deva Metal Powders (P) Ltd. v. Commr., Trade Tax (UP), 2008 (221) E.L.T. 16 (SC):2008TaxPub(EX)28, in as much as that 'mistake' means to take or understand wrongly or inaccurately or to make an error in interpreting and 'apparent' means visible, capable of being seen. Notification would be applicable with effect from 1-3-1994 as it was only for a brief period from 1-3-1994 to 6-9-1995 and an Exemption Notification had not been issued. It was sought to be submitted that this void was inconsistent with the Government policy and, therefore, the Exemption Notification should be treated as clarifactory with retrospective effect. Division Bench accepted the contention advanced by assessee that the benefit of Exemption Notification would be available from 1-3-1994. Mistake that had crept in the Final Order by granting benefit of the Exemption Notification from 6-9-1995, instead of from 1-3-1994 needed to be rectified.