TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the appellants M/s Thermax Ltd. seeks correction of a typographical error, which has crept in the Final Order of the Tribunal No. A/222/08/WZB/C-I/SMB, dated 1-2-2008 [2008 (227) E.L.T. 143 (T)]. 2. The learned JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue fairly concedes that the date 7-11-2007 appearing in last but third line of the order is a typographical error and the same should have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 21-2-07 for fresh decision. Hence this appeal by the importer who submits that once the claim for refund was sanctioned by the Order-in-Original dated 7-11-06, which was not appealed against by the Revenue, the second Order-in-Original dated 21-2-07 passed by the same Asstt. Commissioner was bad in law and further, the order dated 7-11-06 was not the subject matter of appeal before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... graphical error in the order as pointed out in the miscellaneous application. The appellants have not filed any ROM application as required under the provisions of Section 129B(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 to rectify the error apparent on record. However, I find from the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore reported at 2008 (2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake and there is no reason for the revenue to demand the remaining Rs. 10,00,000/-. Therefore ignoring the technicalities and notwithstanding the delay in filing the ROM application, we allow the same and we confirm that the amount to be set aside is only Rs. 15,00,000/- and not Rs. 5,00,000/- as mentioned in Para 6 of the order. Therefore, we allow the ROM. 6. I find that the facts of the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
