2000(11)LCX0253
IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI
S/Shri V.K. Agrawal, Member (T) and P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH
Misc. Order No. 205/2000-B, dated 17-11-2000 in Appeal No. E/ROM/175/2000-B in E/1413/96-B
Advocated By : Shri Vikrant Kackaria, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri M.P. Singh, JDR, for the Respondents.
[Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - This is an application filed by Punjab State Electricity Board for rectification of mistake said to have taken in Final Order No. 1093/2000-B, dated 9-6-2000.
2. Shri Vikrant Kackaria, learned Advocate, submitted that the Tribunal under the said Final Order has rejected the appeal filed by them holding that the refund claim was hit by the time limit specified under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act; that the Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the refund claim only on the ground of non-production of copies of original gate pass; that their refund claim was nowhere rejected on the ground of time and as such the ground on which Tribunal has rejected the claim is altogether different and not taken by the appellants and the ground which had been dropped by the Asstt. Commissioner as well as Commissioner (Appeals). He, therefore, submitted that the Final Order has resulted from a mistake apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as altogether a new ground of time limitation has been taken.
3. Opposing the application, Shri M.P. Singh, learned D.R., submitted that the Final Order was opposed by the Tribunal after hearing the Advocates who appeared on behalf of the applicants; that the question of time limit was also argued as is evident from para 2 of the Final Order No. 1093/2000; that both the Asst. Commissioner as well as Commissioner (Appeals) has also referred to the fact that the amount of duty paid in excess was not paid under protest. He finally submitted that in any case the question of limitation is a legal question which can be raised at any stage and as such there is no mistake apparent on the face of the record.
4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is apparent from the Final Order in question that the question whether the refund claim was filed within the time limit specified in Section 11B was argued by the Advocates who appeared on behalf of the applicants and the Tribunal has accordingly decided the issue whether the refund claim was filed within the time limit specified in Section 11B of the Act. In view of this there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the application filed by the applicants is rejected.
Equivalent 2001 (127) ELT 0594 (Tri. - Del.)