Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Customs Act, 1962
Ms. Deeksha Suri & Ors. vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 5 November, 1997
6. Countering the arguments of the ld. Counsel Shri V.M. Udhoji along with Shri K. Srivastava, ld. DR submits that the scope of an application for rectification of mistake is based on mistake apparent on the record. He submits that in the instant case, there is no mistake apparent on the record. Ld. DR submits that the mistake is in the nature of argument and that such a mistake cannot be termed as a mistake apparent on the record. He submitted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Deeksha Suri v. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reported in 1998 (102) E.L.T. 524 observed that the power to rectify any mistake apparent on the record does not contemplate a rehearing which would have the effect of re-writing an order affecting the merits of the case. He submits that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that what is not permitted by the statute having deliberately omitted to confer review jurisdiction on the Tribunal, cannot be indirectly achieved by recourse to Section 254(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponding to Section 35C(2) of Central Excise Act, 1944. He submitted that the Hon'ble High Court further observed that a decision on a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent on the record. He submitted that an exemption notification is not an indicator of the correct classification of the goods under the tariff.
Article 215 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S.A.L. Narayana Row, Commissioner Of ... vs Model Mills Nagpur Ltd. on 6 October, 1966
In this connection, we note that the Supreme Court has held in the case of SAL Narayana Row v. Model Mills, Nagpur 1967 (64) ITR. 67 that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is competent to rectify its order based upon a subsequent decision of the High Court.