Holding

A "mistake apparent from the record" must be obvious and patent; re‑appreciation of evidence or a change of legal view is not permissible under Section 35C(2), rendering the CESTAT’s rectification order ultra vires.

Summary

The Revenue Department alleged that RDC Concrete (India) Ltd. undervalued its pavers and sold them to an inter‑connected company to evade excise duty. The CESTAT upheld the duty demand but later, upon a rectification application under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, modified its earlier order, quashing the duty and penalties, accepting that the department’s Cost Accountant was not competent and that the buyer was not an inter‑connected company. The Revenue appealed, contending that the Tribunal had exceeded its limited power to correct only a "mistake apparent from the record". The Supreme Court held that such a mistake must be obvious and patent; it cannot involve re‑appreciation of evidence or a change of legal view. Consequently, the CESTAT’s rectification order was beyond its jurisdiction and was set aside. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

The scope of power conferred by Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to rectify a "mistake apparent from the record".
Whether re‑appreciation of evidence or alteration of a legal view constitutes a permissible rectification.
Whether the CESTAT’s modification of its earlier order, including quashing duty and penalties, was within its jurisdiction.

Legislation cited

Central Excise Act, 1944s. 35C(1), s. 35C(2)

Subjects

Central ExciseRectificationMistake apparent from the recordCESTAT jurisdictionRe‑appreciation of evidenceInter‑connected companiesCost accountant valuationAppellate tribunal powers

Judgment

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 982

A COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR,
MUMBAI
v.
RDC CONCRETE (INDIA) P. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 4409 of 201)
B
AUGUST 9, 2011
[DR. MUKUNDAt<AM SHARMA AND
ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

C Central Excise Act, 1944 - s. 35C(2) - Application under
- For rectification of mistake ·- Power of appellate tribunal -
Held: Re-appreciation of ev·idence on a debatable point
cannot be said to be rectification of mistake apparent on
record - Mistake apparent on record must be an obvious and '
D patent mistake - It cannot be something which can be
established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points
on which there may conceivably be two opinions - Decision
on a debatable point of law c.9nnot be a mistake apparent
from the record - On facts, the! appellate Tribunal exceeded
E the powers given to it u/s. 35C(2) of the Act, and tried to re-
appreciate the evidence and reconsider its legal view taken
earlier in pursuance of a rectmcation application, which it
could not have done so - Thus, the order passed in
pursuance of the rectification application is bad in law and, is
F rquashed and set aside.
Respondent-Company is engaged in the
manufacturing of pavers. According to appellant-
Revenue Department, the respondent sold its excisable
goods to a related person or an inter-connected
G undertaking at a particular price and immediately
)
thereafter, the inter-connected company had sold the
very same goods at much higher price to another
company, for the purpose of evasion of excise duty. A
Cost Accountant was appointed to ascertain value of the
H 982
...
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR, MUMBAI 983
v. RDC CONCRETE (INDIA) P. LTD.
\ _..
goods manufactured by the respondent. Thereafter, the A
Department raised demand for excise duty together with
interest and equivalent amount of penalty. The
respondent challenged the same. In the appeal filed by
the respondent, the CESTAT upheld the demand of duty
with interest and penalty. However, certain amount of B
penalty was set aside. The respondent filed an
application for rectification of the said order under
Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. CESTAT
modified the original final order to such an extent that the
entire demand of duty was quashed and set aside as also c
the penalty imposed upon the respondent-Company and
the Directors of the Company was set aside. CESTAT also
accepted the submission raised by the respondent that
~ an employee of the Department who was not in practice
1
as a Cost Accountant, could not have been appointed to D
ascertain the value of the goods manufactured by the
respondent (which was raised in the appeal but was not
accepted by the CESTAT earlier) and did:•not accept the
valuation arrived at by tEe Cost Accountant and the order
was modified. Ther fore, the appellant-Revenue
Department filed the instant appeal.
E

Allowing the appeal, the Court
). HELD: 1.1 A mistake apparent on record must be an
obvious and patent mistake. A "mistake apparent from F
the record" cannot be something which can be
established by a long drawn process of reasoning on
points on which there may conceivably be two opinions.
A decision on a debatable point of law cannot be a
mistake apparent from the record. [Paras 16 and 21] [992· G
D·E; 999-G-H; 995-A·B]
T. S. Bairam v. Mis. Vo/kart Brothers 82 ITR 50; /TO v.
Ashok Textiles 41 ITR 732 - referred to.

1.2 If one looks at the subsequent order passed by H
984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A the CESTAT in pursuanc:e of the rectification application,
it is very clear that the CESTAT re-appreciated the
evidence and came to a different conclusion than the
earlier one. At an earlier point of time, the CESTAT came
to a conclusion that the company to which the ,
B respondent-assessee sold its goods was an inter- t

connected company. In the circumstances, according to
the CESTAT, the decision of the department to appoint a
Cost Accountant to ascertain value of the goods
manufactured by the as;essee was considered to be just
c and proper. However, after considering the submissions
made in pursuance of the rectification application, the
CESTAT came to a difforent conclusion to the effect that
the asessee company and the buyer of the goods were
not inter-connected cc>mpanies. Different conclusions '
t
were arrived at by the CESTAT because it re-appreciated
0
the evidence in relation to common directors among the
companies and inter se holding of shares by the
companies. Re-appreciation of evidence on a debatable
point cannot be said to be rectification of mistake
E apparent on record. [Para 16) [992-D-H; 993-A]

1.3 In pursuance of the rectifying application, the
CEST AT came to the conclusion that an officer of the
department, who wa~• working as Assistant Director
(Cost) and was also a Member of an Institute of Cost and
F Works Accountants was not competent as a Cost
Accountant to ascertain value of the goods. It is strange
as to why the CESTAT came to the conclusion that it was
necessary that the person appointed as a Cost
Accountant should be in practice. There is no reason as
G to how the CESTAT came to the conclusion that the Cost
Accountant, whose services were availed by the
department should noit llave been engaged because he
was an employee of the department and he was not in
practice. The said fac:ts clearly show that the CESTAT
H
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR, MUMBAI 985
v. RDC CONCRETE (INDIA) P. LTD.
took a different view in pursuance of the rectification A
application. The submissions which were made before
the CESTAT by the respondent while arguing the
rectification application were also advanced before the
CESTAT when the appeal was heard at an earlier stage.
The arguments not accepted at an earlier point of time B
· were accepted by the CESTAT after hearing the
rectification application. It is strange as to how a
particular decision taken by the CESTAT after
considering all the relevant facts and submissions made
on behalf of the parties was changed by the CESTAT. c
There was no mistake apparent on record when the
CESTAT did not accept a submission of the respondent
to the effect that the officer appointed to value the goods
manufactured by asessee should not have been engaged
as a c!ost Accountant. [Para 17] [993-B-G] D
Saci Allied Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Meerut 2005(183) E.L.T 225 (S.C.); Commissioner of Central
Excise.Mumbai v. Bharat Bijlee Limited 2006 (198) ELT 489;
Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income
Tax, Delhi 2008(221) E.L.T 11 (S.C.) - referred to. E

1.4 Upon perusal of both the orders viz. earlier order
dated 4th November, 2008 and order dated 23rd
November, 2009 passed in pursuance of the rectification
application, the CESTAT exceeded its powers given to it F
under the provisions of Section 35C(2) of the Central
Excise Act, 1944 and it tried to re-appreciate the evidence
and it reconsidered its legal view taken earlier in
pursuance of a rectification application. The CESTAT
could not have done so while exercising its powers under G
Section 35C(2) of the Act, and, therefore, the impugned
order passed in pursuance of the rectification application .
is bad in law and, therefore, the said order is quashed and
set aside. [Paras 16, 22] [992-C; 995-C]
Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Ascu Ltd. H
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R.
(
~
A Calcutta 2003 (9) SCC 230; Commissioner of Central Excise,
Vadodara v. Steelco Gujarat Ltd. 2003(12) SCC 731; Deva
Metal Powders Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P.
2008 (221) E.L.T 16; Mepco Industries Limited, Madurai 11.
Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. 2010 (1) SCC 434:
•'
B 2009 (15) SCR 1026 - cited. 1'"

Case Law Reference:

2003 (9) sec 230 Cited Para 13

2003(12) sec 131 Cited Para 13
c
2008 (221) E.L.T 16 Cited Para 13

2009 (15) SCR 1026 Cited Para 13
•
82 ITR 50 Referred to Para 16, 21 t

D
2005(183) E.L.T 225 (S.C.) Referred to Para 18
2006 (198) ELT 489 Referred to Para 19

2008(221) E.L.T 11 i:s.C.) Referred to Para 20
E 41 ITR732 Referred to Para 21

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
4409 of 2010.
...._

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.2009 of the
F
Customs, Excise &Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal
Bench at Mumbai in A1ppeal No. E/2032/06.

B. Bhattacharya, ASG, Harish Chandra, B. Tamta, Ajay
Singh, Judy James, Nimisha Swarup and B. Krishna Prasad
G for the Appellant.
~
Arshad Hidayatullah, Shailaja Kher, P.K. Ram, P.N.
Srivastava and Rajesh Kumar for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR, MUMBAI 987
\ v. RDC CONCRETE (INDIA) P. LTD.
-~
ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the Order dated A
23rd November, 2009, passed in Appeal No.E/2032/06-Mum.
by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
(CESJ"AT), West Zonal Bench at Mumbai, this appeal has been
filed by the Revenue - Commissioner of Central Excise,
; Belapur, Mumbai. B
2. By virtue of the impugned order, the CESTAT has
rectified its Order dated 4th November, 2008 passed in Appeal
No.E-2032-2033/06 in pursuance of an application for
rectification filed by the present respond'ent-assessee under
Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter
c
referred to as 'the Act').

~ It is the case of the appellant that the aforestated final order
-~
dated 4th November, 2008 passed by the CESTAThas been ·~-~

rectified in pursuance of the application filed by the respondent D
herein. The case of the appellant, in this appeal, is that under
the garb of rectification, the CESTAT has modif!_ed its order
dated 4th November, 2008 in such a way as if the respondent
asessee had filed an appeal against the said order and the
CESTAT has virtually allowed the appeal against its own order. E

3. Mr. B. Bhattacharya, learned Additional Solicitor
l General, appearing for the Revenue submitted that the CESTAT
t- has limited power to rectify its mistake under the provision of
Section 35C(2) of the Act. The relevant portion of the said
F
section reads as under:
"35C(2) - The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within
six months from the date of the order, with a view to
rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend
any order passed by it under sub-section (1) and shan G
make such amendments if the mistake is brought to its
notice by the Commissioner of Central Excise or the other
party to the appeal.. ....... n
The learned counsel submitted that as per the language of the H
.....
988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A aforestated sub-section, it is clear that the Appellate Tribunal,
i.e. the CESTAT has power to rectify any mistake which is
apparent from the record of any order passed by it under
Section 35C( 1) of the Act. The learned counsel submitted that
the CESTAT had passed final order dated 4th November, 2008
B in an appeal filed before it by the respondent. By virtue of the
final order passed in the said appeal filed by the respondent,
the CESTAT had upheld the demand of duty of
Rs.90,89,480.56 together with interest and equivalent penalty
of Rs.90,89,480.56 but the order imposing penalty of
c Rs.25,00,000/- had been set aside. Moreover, the penalty
imposed upon Shri Sanjay Bahadur had been reduced to
Rs.1,00,000/-.

4. In pursuance of the application submitted by the
respondent for rectification, the CESTAT modified the original
D final order to such an extent that the entire demand of duty has
been quashed and set aside and as a consequence thereof
the penalty imposed upon the respondent company and upon
the Directors of the company has also been set aside.
E 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue
submitted that in pursuance of the rectification application, the
CESTAT has not only substantially changed its order but has
also changed its legal view on the subject. According to him,
while rectifying any order, the CESTAT can rectify any mistake
F which is apparent from the record. Under the guise of
rectification, the CESTAT cannot altogether take a different view
in law and it cannot reappreciate evidence which had been led
before it.

6. He further submitted that the CESTAT has practically
G reviewed its order though it has no power to review its order
and, therefore, it was not open to the CESTAT to review the
decision rendered by it on 4th November, 2008. He further
submitted that no judicial or quasi judicial authority has power
to review its order unless the statute gives such a power.
H
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR, MUMBAI 989
v. RDC CONCRETE (INDIA) P. LTD. [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
"'>
-+ 7. Coming to details, as to how the CESTAT exceeded A
its jurisdiction, the learned counsel narrated the facts in a
nutshell. He submitted that the respondent-company is a
manufacturer of 'Unipaved Interlocking Concrete Blocks'
,, (pavers), being excisable goods falling under chapter 68 of the
~ First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. In B
pursuance of specific information received by the Department
of Central Excise with regard to evasion of duty by the
respondent, officers of the Head Quarters (Preventive) Wing
had given a surprise visit to the factory premises of the
respondent on 13th February, 2002 and had checked the c
company's record and recorded statements of its officers. In
pursuance of investigation, it was found that the pavers
manufactured by the respondent were valued by the respondent
'f
at Rs.250/- per sq. mtr. and accordingly excise duty was paid
'i
thereon. The said pavers were sold by the respondent to a
D
related person or its inter-connected company - M/s. Unitech
Ltd. (UTL) for Rs.531/- per sq; mtr. and thereafter UTL was
selling the same for Rs.826.50 per sq. mtr. to Senorita Builders
Pvt. Ltd. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the goods
manufactured by the respondent were shown at a substantially
E
low value only for the purpose of evasion of excise duty.

I 8. In the aforestated circumstances, a Cost Accountant was
j
appointed to ascertain value of the goods manufactured by the
" respondent. The Assistant Director (Cost) of the Excise
Department, who was a Cost Accountant, was appointed, F
though he was in service of the Department. An objection was
raised by the respondent before the CESTAT at the time of
hearing of the appeal referred to hereinabove that an employee ,
of the Department, who was not in practice as a Cost
Accountant, could not have been appointed to ascertain value G

• of the goods manufactured by the respondent.

9. The aforestated objection raised by the respondent was
duly considered by the CESTAT and was rejected for the
reason that the Act or Rules made thereunder nowhere provides
H
990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A that only a Cost Accountant, who is in practice should be
appointed to ascertain value of the goods, when the Revenue
feels that the value of lthe goods shown by the concerned
manufacturer is required to be ascertained. In pursuance of the
rectification application, the CESTAT had heard the matter
B again and a similar objec;tion was raised by the respondent in
the rectification application. Once again it was submitted before
the CESTAT that an offiCE~r of the department, though a Member
of the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India, could
not have been entrusted with the work of ascertaining the value
c of the goods because th1e person so appointed was in service
of the department and was not in practice. The learned counsel
submitted that after hearing the rectification application, the
CESTAT accepted the aforesaid submission (which had not
been accepted by the CESTAT earlier) and the valuation
0 arrived at by the Cost Accountant was not accepted by the
CESTAT and accordingly the order was modified.

10. The learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that the
CESTAT could not hav1e changed its view as stated above
because what was permissible to the CESTAT was only
E rectification of a mistake, if found apparent from the record. The
interpretation with regard to the provision relating to the
appointment of the Cost Accountant, which the CESTAT had
accepted at an earlier point of time could not have been
changed by the CESTAT while deciding the rectification
F application because by <~hanging the legal view, the CESTAT
was not rectifying any mi:stake apparent from the record but the
CESTAT was changin!g its view altogether, which is not
permissible under the provision of Section 35C (2) of the Act.
G 11. Similarly, the learned counsel further submitted that the
CESTAT had earlier arrived at a finding that the respondent
company had sold its eJ<cisable goods to a related person or
an inter-connected undertaking at a particular price and
immediately thereafter the inter-connected company had sold
H the very same goods at much higher price to another company.
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR, MUMBAI 991
v. RDC CONCRETE (INDIA) P. LTD. [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
t .
+ The CESTAT had earlier come to a conclusion that it was A
· nothing but an attempt to evade duty and subsequently, in
pursuance of the rectification application, the eESTAT took
altogether a different view whereby it came to the conclusion
that the company with which the respondent-assessee had
• dealings, was in no way inter-connected. Thus, the facts which B
" had been ascertained at an earlier point of time were found to
be incorrect or the eESTAT had reappreciated evidence while
deciding the rectifying application.

12. According to the learned counsel, the eESTAT should
e
not have re-appreciated the evidence so as to come to a
different conclusion while exercising its power under Section
35e(2) of the Act.
...
')
13. The learned counsel relied upon judgments of this Court
in Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Ascu Ltd., D
Calcutta 2003(9) sec 230, Commissioner of Central Excise,
Vadodara V.· Steelco Gujarat Ltd. 2003(12) SCC 731, Deva
Metal Powders Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P.
2008(221) E.L.T 16 and Mepco Industries Limited, Madurai
v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another 2010(1) sec E
434.

14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

'
!'
respondent-assessee submitted that it was open to the
CESTAT to change its view because it apparently noted its
mistakes which had been committed while passing its earlier
F
order dated 4th November, 2008. The counsel further submitted
that the view expressed by this Court in the judgments referred
to by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant had been
subsequently changed in the judgments delivered in cases of
Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai v. Bharat Bijlee G
Limited, 2006 (198) ELT 489, Honda Siel Power Products Ltd.
vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi , 2008(221) ELT 11
and of Saci Allied Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex.,
Meerut, 2005 (183) ELT 225. Thus, the learned counsel
submitted that the CESTAT did not exceed its power and rightly H
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A rectified the mistakes which were apparent on the record while
deciding the rectification application.

15. We heard the lt3arned counsel at length and also
considered the judgments cited by them and the orders passed
B by the CESTAT.
.•
16. Upon perusal of b1oth the orders viz. earlier order dated
4th November, 2008 and order dated 23rd November, 2009
passed in pursuance of the rectification application, we are of
the view that the CESTAT E!xceeded its powers given to it under
C the provisions of Section 35C(2) of the Act. This Court has
already laid down law in th13 case of T.S. Bairam v. M/s.Volkart
Brothers, 82 ITR 50 to the 1effect that a "mistake apparent from
the record" cannot be something which can be established by
a long drawn process of n3asoning on points on which there
D may conceivably be two opinions. It has been also held that a
decision on a debatable point of law cannot be a mistake
apparent from the record. If one looks at the subsequent order
passed by the CESTAT ln pursuance of the rectification
application, it is very clear that the CESTAT re-appreciated the
E evidence and came to a different conclusion than the earlier
one.

At an earlier point of time, the CESTAT came to a
conclusion that the company to which the respondent-
assessee sold its goods was an inter-connected company.
F In the circumstances, according to the CESTAT, the
decision of the department to appoint a Cost Accountant
to ascertain value of the goods manufactured by the
asessee was considered to be just and proper. However,
after considering the submissions made in pursuance of
G the rectification application, the CESTAT came to a
different cc>nclusion to thE! effect that the asessee company
and the buyer of the goods were not inter-connected
companies. Different conclusions were arrived at by the
CESTAT because it reappreciated the evidence in relation
H to common directors among the companies and inter se
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR, MUMBAI 993
v. RDC CONCRETE (INDIA) P. LTD. [ANIL R. DAVE, J.]
~
'
~.
holding of shares by the companies. Re-appreciation of A
evidence on a debatable point cannot be said to be
rectification of mistake apparent on record.

17. Similarly, in pursuance of the rectifying application, the
•,,, CESTAT came to. the conclusion that an officer of the B
department, who was working as Assistant Director (Cost) and
who was also a Member of an Institute of Cost and Works
Accountants was not competent as a Cost Accountant to
ascertain value of the goods. It is strange as to why the
CESTAT came to the conclusion that it was necessary that the
person appointed as a Cost Accountant should be in practice.
c
We do not see any reason as to how the CESTAT came to
the conclusion that the Cost Accountant, whose services were
• availed by the department should not have been engaged
)
because he was an employee of the department and he was
D
.
not in practice. The aforestated facts clearly show that the·
CESTAT took a different view in pursuance of the rectification
application. The submissions which were made before the
CESTAT by the respondent-assessee while arguing the
rectification application were also advanced before the
CESTAT when the appeal was heard at an earlier stage. The E
arguments not accepted at an earlier point of time were
;-- accepted by the C ESTAT after hearing the rectification
I j
application. It is strange as to how a particular decision taken

' by the CESTAT after considering all the relevant facts and
submissions made on behalf of the parties was changed by the F
CESTAT. There was no mistake apparent on record when the
CESTAT did not accept a submission of the respondent-
assessee to the effect that the officer appointed to value the
goods manufactured by asessee should not have been
engaged as a cost accountant. G

. 18. We are not impressed by the judgments cited by the
learned counsel for the respondent. So far as the judgment
delivered in the matter of Saci Allied Products Ltd. v.
Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut, 2005(183) E.L.T 225 (S.C.)
H
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A is concerned, it pertains te> sale of goods by an asessee to an
independent and unrelated dealers and its effect on valuation.
The said judgment pertains to a transaction with a related
person in the State of U.P., at lower price and as such deals
with the facts of that particular case. In our opinion, the said
B judgment would not help the respondent so far as the matter
..,'
pertaining to rectification is concerned.

19. So far as the jud~1ment delivered in Commissioner of
Central Excise, Mumbai v. Bharat Bijlee Limited, (supra} is
concerned, this Court held therein that when the Tribunal had
C totally failed to take into consideration something which was on
record, the Tribunal had c!lmmitted a mistake apparent on the
face of the record. In the instant case, the evidence which was
on record was duly appr1eciated by the Tribunal at the first
instance but the Tribunal made an effort to re-appreciate the •
D evidence and re-appreciation can never be considered as
rectification of a mistake. We are, therefore, of the view that
the aforementioned judgment would not help the respondent-
assessee.

E 20. So far as judgment delivered in the case of Honda Siel I
Power Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi,
2008(221) E.L.T 11 (S.C.}, is concerned, there also the Tribunal
had not considered certain material which was very much on
record and thereby it c:ommitted a mistake which was
F subsequently rectified by considering and appreciating the
evidence which had not been considered earlier. As stated
hereinabove, in the instant case, the position is absolutely
different.
21. This Court has decided in several cases that a mistake
G apparent on record must be an obvious and patent mistake and
the mistake should not be such which can be established by a J
long drawn process of reasoning. In the case of T.S. Bairam
v. Mis. Vo/kart Brothers (supra}, this Court has already decided
that power to rectify a mistake should be exercised when the
H mistake is a patent one and should be quite obvious. As stated
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELAPUR, MUMBAI 995
v. RDC CONCRETE (INDIA) P LTD: [ANIL R. DAVE, J.)
-.... ...
hereinabove, the mistake cannot be such which can be A
ascertained by a long drawn process of reasoning. Similarly,
this Court has decided in !TO v. Ashok Textiles, 41 ITR 732
that while rectifying a mistake, an erroneous view of law or a
debatable point cannot be decided. Moreover, incorrect
'• application of law can also not be corrected. B
22. For the aforestated reasons, we are of the view tha!
the CESTAT exceeded its powers and it tried to re-appreciate
the evidence and it reconsidered its legal view taken earlier in·
pursuance of a rectification application. !n our opinion, the
CESTAT could not have done so while exercising its powers c
under Section 35C(2) of the Act, and, therefore, the impugned
order passed in pursuance of the rectification application is bad
4 in law and, therefore, the said order is hereby quashed and set
aside. The appeal is allowed with rye order as to costs.
D
N.J. Appeal allowed.

j