Full Judgment
2. Shri S.C. Shukla appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the MODVAT credit was denied to the applicants only on technical grounds. He submits that inputs received by the applicants which was duty paid and are used in the manufacture of final product and Revenue was not disputing this aspect. His submission is that as the deficiencies in the invoices are procedural in nature, the substantive benefit should not be denied. No other point was raised during the arguments.
4. The contention of the applicants is that benefit of MODVAT credit was denied only on technical grounds as the deficiencies in the invoices are mere procedural in nature. The Tribunal in the final order No.A/1396/99-NB (SM) dated 9.12.99 already considered this point and after considering these arguments which are being raised now taken a view. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, I.T.Officer Company Circle IV, Bombay Vs. M/s. Volkart Borthers, Bombay and Others, AIR 1971 SUPREME COURT 2204 held that a mistake apparent from the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. The mistake not be rectified must be beneficial and as self evident. A decision on debateable point of law is not a mistake apparent on record. In view of this discussion, I find no merit in the application, the same is rejected.