9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged at the hands of appellant has passed the test of manufacture and hence excisable and that they are not eligible for Notification No. 202/88-C.E., dated 25-8-88. Detailed findings have been given on various issues raised by the appellant during the time of hearing of the appeal. 3. Learned Advocate submits that there are errors apparent on the following grounds :- "....... (i) In sub-para (g) of para 3 of the impugned order, it is stated thus : "It also appears that they failed to produce any evidence about the purchase and duty paid nature of steel tubes, claimed to have been used for producing Oxygen Lancing Pipes." It has also been similarly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In para 9 of the impugned order, it is held that the appellant had failed to produce evidence about satisfying the two conditions subject to which the benefit of Notification 202/88-C.E., dated 20-5-88 could be extended to it, the said two conditions being that thickness of the inputs was not to exceed 5 mm and that the inputs were duty paid. These findings, too, are, erroneous on facts. The thickness of the goods is apparent from the purchase orders placed on the appellant by Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd., Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. These documents clearly indicate that the dimensions of the tubes in question were as specified in Notification 202/88-C.E. supra. It appears that the Tribunal has in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he benefit of notification at the time of its issuance, and assessees who sought the said benefit thereafter. As such, the interpretation cannot be accorded to the explanation in Notification 202/88-C.E. supra". 4. Learned DR submits that what is sought for by the applicant is basically recall of the order and rehearing of the appeal. If the prayer is acceded to, it will, in effect, amount to Tribunal reviewing its own order. Such a review is not permissible. He, in support of his contention, relied on the decision of Tribunal in case of Saluja Engg. Works v. CCE, Jamshedpur [2008 (227) E.L.T. 165 (Tri.-Del.)] and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Ram Kirpal v. Union of India [1998 (103) E.L.T. 8 (Guj.)]. 5. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are as follows : 10. In the instant case, except a vague pleading in para 7 of the Grounds to the effect that "as there is no suppression of facts, the demand is time barred as the demand relates to the period which is beyond six months", it does not appear that the ground was seriously canvassed. From the record, it appears that the dispute was raised with respect to classification. It is relevant to mention here that no such plea appears to have been taken by the applicant in the reply to the show cause notice or argued before the Collector, Central Excise, vide the Order-in-Original. No foundational facts were stated in the memo portion of the appeal. 11. A perusal of the rectification application suggests that the applicant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out. However, an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on a point where two opinions are conceivable would not constitute error on the face of record. An error can be said to be apparent on the face of record only when it is patent and can be found without any elaborate argument, without any scope for controversy, with regard to such error. If the law that is applied is not the law applicable, it will be a case of error apparent on the face of record. If the judgment is defective, on the face of it, or where an important issue on which the outcome of the proceeding would depend, has not been considered or the law declared by the Apex Court or the jurisdictional High Court has not been noticed, that too would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
