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 - 2000 (5) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2000 (5) TMI 276 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Mistake in Tribunal's Final Order
2. Contention regarding combing facility
3. Examination of points by the Tribunal
4. Request for decision on merits

Analysis:

1. The appellant's representative argued that a mistake had occurred in the Tribunal's Final Order regarding the disposal of two appeals by the same order, one from M/s. Mafatlal Fine Spg. and Mfg. Co. and the other from Bombay Dyg. Mfg. Co. Ltd. The Tribunal had adopted arguments from M/s. Mafatlal's Counsel for deciding the case of M/s. Bombay Dyg. The issue of combing facility availability was contested, leading to a remand order directing a fresh decision after verifying the existence of combing facilities in the factories. The appellant requested the directions to be amended to consider M/s. Bombay Dyeing's contentions for a fair decision.

2. The JDR for the respondents argued that all points raised by the appellant had been addressed by the Collector in the impugned order. The appellant had claimed no combing facility, leading to a limited scope of examination in the remand order. The JDR contended that there was no basis for rectifying the alleged mistake.

3. Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal acknowledged that the majority of the appellant's contested points were not examined in the impugned order due to two cases being decided together, involving M/s. Mafatlal Industries and M/s. Bombay Dyeing. As only M/s. Mafatlal's Counsel appeared, the contentions of M/s. Bombay Dyeing were not fully examined. To ensure fairness, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner to pass separate orders for each case after examining all contentions raised by the parties, granting them a personal hearing opportunity. The Tribunal allowed the Review of Order Mechanism (ROM) to broaden the scope of de novo adjudication.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the mistake in the Tribunal's Final Order, the issue of combing facility availability, the examination of points by the Tribunal, and the request for a decision on merits. The Tribunal's decision aimed to ensure a fair assessment by directing separate orders for each case and providing both parties with an opportunity for a personal hearing.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates