TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been detailed in para 14 of the application and the same are reproduced as under :- "(i) Hon'ble Tribunal has not given any finding on applicant's persistent plea that the claim of refund filed by it is consequential to CEGAT's final order dated 22-1-1999 and therefore limitation of six months stipulated under section 11B of the Central Excise Act does not apply. (ii) Without prejudice to the above plea, it is admitted to the department that duty had to be paid by the applicant/appellant because C.T. 2 certificate was denied by Central Excise authorities at Bareilly, as evident from the show cause notice (Annexure L to the present appeal) and Deputy Commissioner's O-in-O dt. 16-6-2000 (Annexure N to present appeal). Collection of duty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the judgment, under the guise of the ROM, the applicants cannot legally ask for rehearing of the appeal. 5. We have heard both the sides and gone through the record. 6. The perusal of the impugned order dated 15-2-2002 shows that the applicants applied for the refund of the duty amount of Rs. 24,28,233/- on 28-10-99 under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act on the ground that they were procuring Naphtha under CT-2 certificates under Chapter X procedure from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., but they paid duty on the naphtha during the period 8-2-98 to 11-5-98, as central excise authority denied them CT-2 certificate in respect of use of naphtha in the turbines for generation of steam and power. That refund claim was rejected by the Deput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in Mafatlal Industries case (supra) by the Apex Court. But the question as to whether the refund claim of the applicants was within time or barred by limitation, was a question of fact which had been decided against them by the Tribunal. Similarly, allowing production of additional evidence (letters) to the applicants at the appellate stages was also within the discretion of the Tribunal. The Tribunal disallowed the production keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. The ratio of law laid in the cases, referred to above cited by the Counsel for contending that production of the documents was wrongly disallowed, is not of any avail to the applicants in the present ROM app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned final order of the Tribunal. No mistake of fact or law apparent on the face of the record, cannot be said to have been committed by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. None of the grounds alleged by the applicants in para 14 of the application (detailed above) can be said to be a mistake appearing on the face of the record. These grounds/mistakes infact, pertain to the merits of the case and the applicants want us to recall the order on these grounds, but that is not permissible under the law. In the garb of the ROM, the applicants cannot seek recall of the order and rehearing of the appeal. It is well settled that on a debatable question of fact or law, no ROM is maintainable. In this context, reference may be made to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
