Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2001 (5) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2001 (5) TMI 663 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The applicants, M/s. Tarai Foods Ltd., filed an application for rectification of mistake (ROM) seeking the recall and rectification of the Tribunal's order dated 11-5-2000. They argued that the adjudication order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was not sustainable due to the show cause notice being issued by a person without jurisdiction. The applicants cited various judgments to support their claim, including the case of M/s. Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. CCE Chandigarh and the case of Avinash Prefabs v. CCE Bangalore. They contended that the show cause notice was contrary to Circular No. 299/15/97-CX issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, which specified the authority based on the amount of duty demand. The applicants argued that the show cause notice should have been issued by the Assistant Commissioner instead of the Superintendent. They relied on legal precedents to support their argument that the impugned final order should be rectified due to the jurisdictional issue in the issuance of the show cause notice.

The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments, found that the ROM application was essentially seeking a review of the order passed, which is not permissible under the ROM application. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Dinkar Khindria v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi, which held that review of the order passed is not allowed under the guise of a ROM application. The Tribunal noted that the applicants had cited various decisions and legal provisions but concluded that there was no merit in the ROM application. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the ROM application, upholding the original order passed on 11-5-2000.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the application for rectification of mistake filed by M/s. Tarai Foods Ltd. The Tribunal emphasized that seeking a review of the order passed through a ROM application was not permissible. The decision was based on the legal principle that a ROM application cannot be used to challenge or review the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal's dismissal of the ROM application reaffirmed the principle established by the Larger Bench in a previous case and upheld the original order passed on 11-5-2000.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates