9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plication filed by the appellants says that there is a mistake apparent from the record, in Final Order No. 1269/07 dated 16-10-2007 passed by this Bench in the captioned appeal. In the said final order, the Apex Court's judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v J.K. Udaipur Udyog Ltd. [2004] (171) E.L.T. 289 (S.C)] was followed and the appellants were held to be ineligible for MODVAT c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ves, lubricating oils etc.) is concerned, the matter is squarely covered by the decision of this court in the case of Vikram Cement v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore reported in 2006 (194) E.L.T.3 (S.C.). Therefore, the appeals where credit on inputs is concerned, are allowed." On this basis, it is submitted that Final Order No. 1269/07 needs to be modified. I have heard the learned SDR a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . According to the learned SDR, the appellants are barred by limitation from taking the MODVAT credit in question in view of the aforesaid amendment to Rule 57G coupled with the decision of the Apex Court in Osram Surya case. 2. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, I find that the decision of the Apex Court in Vikram Cement cases was not noted by this Bench, nor cited by either ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court is not considered by the Tribunal at the time of final disposal of an appeal, the same would constitute an error apparent on the face of the record by reason of applicability of the doctrine of per incuriam. In terms of this ruling of the five-member Larger Bench of the Tribunal, it has to be held that the above final order passed by this Bench is erroneous due to non-consideration of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
