9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingh, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, DR ORDER PER: RACHNA GUPTA Present Order disposes of the Application for Rectification of Mistake in Final Order No. 51848/2018 dated 16.05.2018. 2. We have heard Shri B.K. Singh, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri Rakesh Kumar, Ld. DR for the Department. 3. It is submitted that the Show Cause Notice dated 28.02.2013 was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed upon on behalf of the appellant that it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that vide letter dated 18.02.2009 the post of officials at Jodhpur-ICD against which the exemption was granted vide Ministry's letter dated 23.05.2006 were regularised/encadred. As such all those posts were brought encadered strength of the CBEC. It is alleged that the impugned Final Order has committed a mist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation. It is still for the Department/ Board either to waive or recover the cost recovery charges, it being the discretion of the Department. 7. We find no infirmity in the Order atleast nothing of the nature which can squarely be covered under the definition of error apparent on record. Even the findings, "it makes no difference if the officers posted were from cadre or outsourced by the Departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as an Appellate Court over its decision. That which could not be done directly could also not be done indirectly. Otherwise, a party aggrieved by an Order passed by one Bench would be tempted to attempt to get the matter reopened before another Bench and there would not be any end to such attempts. Besides, it was not consistent with the judicial discipline which must be maintained by the courts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
