TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) TMI 638 - SUPREME COURT] , the Apex Court has only remanded the matter for reconsideration by the Tribunal. The contention of the appellant that decision in M/s. M/s. Mahendra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd., has to be applied would be redo or review of the order, which the law does not allow. There is no error on the face of record, which requires rectification - ROM application is dismissed. - E/ROM/40281/2018 in E/00716/2010 - Misc. Order No. 40206/2019 - Dated:- 19-3-2019 - Smt. Sulekha Beevi C.S, Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) For the Appellant: Ms. D. Naveena, Adv. For the Respondent: T. Ushadevi, DC (AR) ORDER Per Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d dismissed the appeal filed by the department. The appellant could not place the order of the Tribunal before this Bench while arguing the matter. She relied upon the Tribunal decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Vs M/s. Raaja Magnetics vide Final Order No.20169/2017, dated 30.01.2017 as reported in 2017 (6) TMI 800 - CESTAT - Bangalore and pointed out that Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the department. She prayed that the Tribunal may reconsider limitation issue. In the alternative she prayed that the penalties may be set aside. 3. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue Ms. T. Ushadevi, DC (AR) opposed the grounds stated in the ROM application. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue against the appellants. The present contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal ought to follow the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd., (supra) and in doing so, as the appellant has produced Cost Accountant's certificate, the matter may be remanded. We have to say that the Tribunal after taking into consideration the arguments and appreciating the facts has applied the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. General Engineering Works (supra). The appellant does not dispute that the said case is not applicable to the facts or issues presented in the appeal. Thus, when the Tribunal has applied the law that is rendered by the Apex Court, we do not find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter was remanded to the Tribunal. In the circumstances, it can be interpreted that the Apex Court has not deviated from its earlier ratio laid down in M/s. General Engineering Works (supra) since the decision in M/s. Mahendra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has only remanded the matter for reconsideration by the Tribunal. The contention of the appellant that decision in M/s. M/s. Mahendra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd., has to be applied would be redo or review of the order, which the law does not allow. 8. The counsel has submitted that the decision of Tribunal on limitation is erroneous and an alternative plea has prayed to set aside the penalties. In para 5.3, the issue of limitation has been discussed. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
