Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2003 (9) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2003 (9) TMI 658 - AT - Central Excise

Issues involved:
1. Non-appearance of applicants in ROM application.
2. Restoration of ROM application due to personal reasons.
3. Rectification sought in the impugned final order.
4. Alleged mistakes in the Tribunal's observations.
5. Denial of benefit under Notification No. 84/75-C.E.
6. Scope of ROM application and re-hearing of appeal on merits.

Issue 1: The judgment initially notes the non-appearance of the applicants in the ROM application, leading to the dismissal of the application as not contested due to lack of interest shown by the applicants.

Issue 2: The judgment then discusses the restoration of the ROM application after the learned Counsel's late arrival due to personal reasons, highlighting the interest of justice as the reason for recalling the previous order.

Issue 3: The applicants sought rectification in the impugned final order, citing factual inaccuracies in the Tribunal's observations regarding the dressing condition of the yarn and the interpretation of the benefit under Notification No. 84/95. The learned Counsel argued that the Tribunal's decision was based on incorrect facts and misinterpretations.

Issue 4: The judgment further delves into the alleged mistakes pointed out by the learned Counsel, emphasizing discrepancies in the Tribunal's observations and the incorrect quantification of duty by the authorities below. The Counsel contended that the Tribunal's interpretation of the applicants' case was flawed.

Issue 5: Another argument raised by the learned Counsel was the denial of the benefit under Notification No. 84/75-C.E. by the authorities below, based on the classification of the product as sewing thread instead of yarn, which the exemption applied to. The Tribunal was urged to reconsider this aspect.

Issue 6: The judgment addresses the scope of the ROM application, emphasizing that it is limited to correcting obvious and patent mistakes on the face of the record. It clarifies that re-hearing the appeal on merits is not permissible under the law, citing the Apex Court's observations in a relevant case. The Tribunal concluded that the contentions raised by the Counsel did not amount to a mistake on the face of the record, leading to the dismissal of the ROM application.

In conclusion, the judgment dismisses the ROM application after a thorough analysis of the issues raised by the applicants and the arguments presented by the learned Counsel, highlighting the limited scope of the ROM application and the inability to re-evaluate evidence or re-hear the appeal on its merits.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates