TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri M.H. Patil and D.H. Nadkarni, Advocates, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. These applications filed by the Commissioner (appellant in appeal Nos. E/129 to 131/2003) are for rectification of what he considers as an error in our Final Order No. 4 to 6/2005 dt. 12-10-2004 [2005 (185) E.L.T. 185 (Tri.)]. The appeals were dismissed and, consequently, the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal was filed before the Hon ble High Court (CMA No. 2340/2005) and the same was disposed of as per judgment dated 25-4-2007 with a direction to this Tribunal to dispose of the present applications of the department within six weeks. A copy of the High Court s judgment has been produced. We are taking up the ROM applications in terms of the Hon ble High Court s direction. 3. From the averments c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isposed of. 4. Ld. counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the pendency of the miscellaneous application was not brought to the notice of the Bench by the DR at the time of final disposal of the appeals. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was not bound to entertain the said application, submits ld. Counsel claiming support from Commission v. Vasant Maganlal Chokshi, 2006 (20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional ground was sought to be raised. Even in the present applications, the Department has not claimed that their representative had sought to raise additional grounds before the Bench at hearing stage of the appeals. In the circumstances, it has to be held that any additional ground was not part of the record when the final order was passed and that non-consideration of such ground did not re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
