2003 (12) TMI 415 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against dismissal of appeals by the Appellate Tribunal.
2. Request for rectification of final order.
3. Consideration of penalty imposition issue.
4. Barred duty demand not considered in the final order.
5. Appeal to Supreme Court against final order.
6. Review petition filed against dismissal of civil appeals.
7. Merger of Tribunal order with Supreme Court order.
8. Relief in the ROM application.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed applications challenging the dismissal of appeals by the Appellate Tribunal under Final Order Nos. 170-179/03-NB(A) dated 10-4-2003. The Tribunal noted that the earlier order in the case of the appellant, Final Order Nos. 179-180/99-A, dated 23-2-99, was followed. It was highlighted that the appeals filed by the assessee before the Supreme Court were also dismissed on 25-3-2003.

2. The appellant filed a ROM contending that the notice for hearing of the appeal was received late, preventing them from addressing arguments on the penalty imposition issue. They sought rectification of the final order, claiming that the non-consideration of penalty and the limitation on duty demand were errors apparent on the record. A miscellaneous application was later filed to introduce an additional ground in the ROM application.

3. During the hearing, the counsel for the assessee informed the Tribunal that the final order dated 10-4-2003 was appealed to the Supreme Court, which subsequently dismissed the appeals on 26-9-2003. A review petition against the dismissal of the civil appeals was also filed but was later dismissed by the Supreme Court.

4. The Tribunal observed that the order passed on 10-4-2003 had merged with the Supreme Court's order dated 26-9-2003, which was also the subject of a review application by the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that no relief could be granted to the appellant in the ROM application before them.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed both the ROM and miscellaneous applications in light of the above circumstances, indicating that the relief sought could not be provided due to the merger of the Tribunal's order with the Supreme Court's decision.