2005 (11) TMI 429 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegation of error apparent in Tribunal's final order regarding limitation.
2. Consideration of all documents by the Tribunal.
3. Whether the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked.
4. Mistake apparent from the record.
5. Filing of ROM application for review of order.

Analysis:

1. The applicants contended that an error apparent from the record existed in the Tribunal's final order due to the non-consideration of all documents supporting their claim of complete departmental knowledge to refute suppression allegations for invoking the extended period of limitation.

2. The Tribunal acknowledged the limitation plea raised by the appellants, emphasizing that the Department knew about their activities since April 1991, yet the show cause notice was issued in 1996. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the Commissioner's letter and the Padmini Products case supported the appellants' stance, noting the concealment of material facts by the appellants.

3. The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked against the appellants due to their failure to disclose crucial details of their manufacturing process and the produced commodity to the Department, as mandated by legal precedents.

4. Referring to the precedent set by the Larger Bench decision in Om Prakash Bhatia v. CC, New Delhi, the Tribunal clarified that the failure to address all grounds or documents in the final order did not constitute a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal emphasized that the appeal process was available to challenge the final order, and filing a ROM application for review was not appropriate in this context.

5. The Tribunal dismissed the applications, highlighting that pursuing appellate remedies was the correct course of action rather than seeking a review through a ROM application, which was deemed improper in this case. The judgment emphasized the importance of following the prescribed legal procedures for challenging orders and decisions.