Collector of C. Ex. Vs. Krishna Silicate and General

Collector of C. Ex. vs Krishna Silicate and General

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided May 10, 1991

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/6441

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/6441
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: May 10, 1991
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of C. Ex.

Respondent

Krishna Silicate and General

Legal References

Reported In: (1991)(56)ELT855TriDel

Excerpt

.....submission that non-reference by the tribunal, while disposing of an appeal, to an authority which had not been placed before it would not constitute a mistake which could be rectified. that would amount to review and not rectification according to that said judgment. the judgment was rendered with regard to the provisions of the income-tax act but the ratio is applicable in relation to the provisions of the central excises and salt act since the provisions of the two acts are similar. that apart, the show cause notice in this case was issued on 22-5-1986, that is, after rule 9(2) was amended on 14-1-1981 by ministry of finance notification no. 3/81-c.e.incorporating the limitation specified in section 11a of the act into the rule. having regard to these circumstances, there is no mistake apparent from the record which needs to be rectified.4. incidentally, we observe that the very issue raised by the collector in the present application was considered by the tribunal in the case of meghamani dyes and intermediates v. cce, baroda, order no. 926/90-c, dated 16-8-1990 wherein it has been held that it was not merely the limitation specified under section 11a of the act but the entire scheme of section 11a has been incorporated into rule 9(2) including the specification of the authorities by whom notice of demand may be issued for the normal period of limitation and the extended period of limitation.5. in the above view of the matter, there is no merit in the application which is consequently dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. This is an application filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, seeking rectification of an alleged mistake in the Tribunal's order No. 544/90-C dated 30-5-1990. It is pointed out that the show cause notice in the proceedings was issued by the Assistant Collector under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and, therefore, the observation of the Tribunal that the show cause notice had been issued under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act was not correct. The judgment of the Tribunal in the case of O.R.G.Systems v. Collector of Central Excise,Piya Pharmaceuticals Works v. Collector of Central Excise, Meerut reported in 1985 (19) ELT 272 have been relied upon in support of the proposition that the incorporation of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act in Central Excise Rule 9(2) was only for the purpose of limitation and did not import into the rule the whole procedure of Section 11A.2. We have heard Shri L. Narasimhamurthy, DR, for the applicant-Collector and Shri Hari Om Arora, Advocate for the respondents.

3. From the text of the Tribunal's order it does not appear that the decisions relied on by the applicant-Collector were cited before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the respondents relies on the Orissa High Court judgment in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jagabandhu Roul in support of his submission that non-reference by the Tribunal, while disposing of an appeal, to an authority which had not been placed before it would not constitute a mistake which could be rectified. That would amount to review and not rectification according to that said judgment. The judgment was rendered with regard to the provisions of the Income-tax Act but the ratio is applicable in relation to the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act since the provisions of the two Acts are similar. That apart, the show cause notice in this case was issued on 22-5-1986, that is, after Rule 9(2) was amended on 14-1-1981 by Ministry of Finance Notification No. 3/81-C.E.incorporating the limitation specified in Section 11A of the Act into the Rule. Having regard to these circumstances, there is no mistake apparent from the record which needs to be rectified.

4. Incidentally, we observe that the very issue raised by the Collector in the present application was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Meghamani Dyes and Intermediates v. CCE, Baroda, Order No. 926/90-C, dated 16-8-1990 wherein it has been held that it was not merely the limitation specified under Section 11A of the Act but the entire scheme of Section 11A has been incorporated into Rule 9(2) including the specification of the authorities by whom notice of demand may be issued for the normal period of limitation and the extended period of limitation.

5. In the above view of the matter, there is no merit in the application which is consequently dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of C. Ex. vs Krishna Silicate and General Same Subject Service Tax