By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, SEPT 04, 2018: AN application for rectification of mistake in the CESTAT order dated 28.12.2017 is made by the assessee.

It is submitted that against an order passed by the Commissioner(A) in relation to the assessee company, the Revenue had filed an appeal before the CESTAT. However, in the matter of setting aside of the penalty imposed on the Director, Jignesh Shah, no appeal was filed by the Revenue.

It is, therefore, pleaded that the restoration of the order-in-original ordered by the CESTAT (after setting aside the o-in-a) should be to the extent of the assessee company only.

The AR submitted that as there is no apparent mistake on the face of the record the miscellaneous application should not be entertained.

The Bench observed -

++ Even though this Tribunal while disposing the appeal filed by the Revenue observed that the impugned order is set aside and the Order-in-Original is restored, the same should be read in the context and in relation to the appeal filed by the Revenue.

++ The Revenue chose to file an appeal challenging the admissibility of the CENVAT Credit amount of Rs.14.12,694/- and no appeal was filed challenging the penalty of Rs.5.00 lakhs imposed on the Director and set aside by the learned Commissioner(Appeals) in the impugned order.

++ This could be a reason of Litigation Policy Circular F. No. 390/Misc/163/2010-JC.

Concluding that there is no mistake apparent on the face of the record and the order of the Tribunal is restricted to the respondent company only, the Miscellaneous application (ROM) was disposed of accordingly.

(See 2018-TIOL-2712-CESTAT-MUM)