TMI Blog1991 (12) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erence to Order No. E/78 to 80/90-D, dated 8-2-1990 read with miscellaneous Order No. M/256/90-D, dated 25-10-1990 and M-73/91-D, dated 18-3-1991. The applicants had preferred the first rectification application on 24-3-1990 and the second miscellaneous application on 26-6-1990 which applications were disposed of by miscellaneous Order No. M/256/90-D. The applicants also filed a third rectification application which was disposed by Order No. M/73/91-D. It is the submission of the applicants that the present application arises as a result of the Tribunal having made only a few minor corrections in the earlier ROM Orders and not touching upon the remaining points/issues urged in the earlier applications. 3. We have heard Shri R. Santhanam, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has already been considered in the Miscellaneous Order No. M/256/90-D and there cannot be rectification of a ROM Order, as has been held in the case of Tracto Auto Industries v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 354 and brought to our notice by the learned SDR. 5. In paragraph 5 of the application the mistake that is alleged to have crept into the final order at page 28, para 5 is that the Tribunal has stated that by the letter of 16-9-1985, RG 1 stage was fixed at multifilament yarn stage whereas the letter fixed the RG 1 stage at the monofilament yarn/split yarn stage. We have perused the above mentioned letter which reads as follows : Central Excise Range II, Div. I, Kanpur C. No. 1-Physical Control/R-II/85 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was rendered per incurium . This again would amount to traversing the scope of a ROM application and would fall in the realm of review, which as already expressed earlier, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 7. The prayer contained in para 7 for stay of operation of the final order of the Tribunal, on the ground that the process of reference set in motion by the order passed on the Writ Petition filed in the Allahabad High Court would clothe the Tribunal with the power to grant stay as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Bansidhar Sons [(1986) 157 ITR 665 = 1986 (24) E.L.T. 193 (SC)] cannot be acceded to in this case, as the applicants have admittedly preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court against the final order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e point or points on which they differ and the case shall be referred by the President for hearing on such point or points by one or more of the other members of the Appellate Tribunal, and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the members of the Appellate Tribunal who have heard the case including those who first heard it: Provided that where the members of a Special Bench are equally divided, the point or points on which they differ shall be decided by the President." 10. The Hon ble Supreme Court discussed this power in the case of Union of India v. Paras Laminates (P) Ltd. [AIR 1991 SC 696 = 1990 (49) E.L.T. 322 (SC)] Paras 10 11 of the S.C. Judgment That the President has ample pow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
