2009 (6) TMI 729 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Disagreement between Member (Technical) and Member (Judicial) in the order passed by the Tribunal.
2. Entitlement to file Review Application (ROM) before the Tribunal.
3. Finality of the order for filing ROM.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with a disagreement between Member (Technical) and Member (Judicial) in the Tribunal's order. The appellant argued that the Member (Technical) wrongly concluded that no permission was granted by the Assistant Commissioner for availing an exemption notification. The appellant pointed to a letter from the Assistant Commissioner confirming fulfillment of conditions. The Tribunal noted the factual error and lack of consideration of the letter by Member (Technical).

2. The Respondent contended that the order in question was not final, citing precedents like CCE, Vadodara v. Baron International Ltd. The Tribunal agreed with this legal position, stating that a Review Application (ROM) cannot be entertained for an order that has not attained finality. The Respondent referred to prior Tribunal decisions to support this argument.

3. The Tribunal held that the ROM application could not be entertained at that stage due to the lack of finality in the order. The appellant was advised to address any factual errors before a third member resolving the difference of opinion. Consequently, the ROM application was disposed of in accordance with the Tribunal's decision, maintaining the legal principles regarding the filing of ROMs.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues of disagreement between Tribunal members, the entitlement to file a ROM, and the finality of the order for ROM filing, as addressed in the legal judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, AHMEDABAD.