ROM application filed by Revenue for getting case law citation corrected
THE caption may surprise you but surprised we were too when we came across this recent decision of the Tribunal.
The Larger Bench of the CESTAT in the case of Vandana Global & Ors (2010-TIOL-624-CESTAT-DEL-LB) has held that Explanation 2 to Rule 2(l) of CCRs, 2004 is clarificatory in nature and hence applicable retrospectively and, therefore, CENVAT Credit not eligible on cement, angles, channels and CTD or TMT used for construction of factory shed, laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods.
The Revenue representative cited this decision in the proceedings before the CESTAT and was successful in getting an order in its favour. Unfortunately and perhaps inadvertently in the order passed by the Tribunal, the "citation" given to the case law referred of Vandana Global was a tad incorrect.
And the Revenue must have got the jitters for that citation belonged to some other case. By the way, in the incorrectly cited case, the Allahabad High Court had also denied the credit!
So, the CCE, Aurangabad filed a ROM application to get the citation corrected. Not surprising if you read 2010-TIOL-149-CESTAT-MUM.
And the Member (Judicial) held -
"3. I find that the citation has been mentioned in the case of Global Vandana 2013(293)ELT186 instead of 2010(253)ELT 440 (LB). Therefore, in paragraph 4 of the order referred therein may be read as Vandana 2010(253)ELT440(LB). With this term, the application for Rectification of Mistake is disposed of."