2018 (10) TMI 458 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of Mistake - case of appellant is that the final order has been passed by the Tribunal overlooking an important document - Held that - The final order has been passed only after consideration of all arguments and material on record and produced during the course of hearing. Only the cumulative effect of such consideration will have to be mentioned in the order as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT vs. Karam Thapar 1989 (2) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT . The RoM is nothing by an attempt that review of the final order which is not permissible in law. ROM application dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against Final Order, Consideration of important document, Review of final order, Permissible grounds for review.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Final Order dated 24.04.2018, where the Tribunal set aside the lower authority's decision and restored the original authority's order.

2. The respondent's advocate argued that an important document, a letter dated 27.08.2013, was overlooked by the Tribunal. The letter indicated the department's view on the classification of goods manufactured by the respondent under CETH 2933.69.

3. The advocate contended that the final order should be recalled and a fresh order passed in favor of the respondent based on the document. However, the Revenue's representative justified the final order, stating that it was passed after considering the entire case record.

4. The Revenue's representative cited a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that one Bench cannot review or comment on another Bench's decision to maintain judicial discipline.

5. The Tribunal heard both sides and examined the record thoroughly.

6. The respondent's advocate reiterated the importance of the letter dated 27.08.2013, which was part of the appeal record but not discussed in the final order. The letter suggested that the goods should be classified under CETH 2933.69.

7. The Tribunal observed that the letter did not conclusively support the respondent's classification argument. The final order was passed after considering all arguments and evidence presented during the hearing, as per established legal principles.

8. The Tribunal cited various legal precedents to support its decision that the application for Review of Modification (RoM) was an impermissible attempt to review the final order.

9. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the RoM application and dismissed it, emphasizing the importance of upholding judicial discipline and finality of decisions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's considerations, and the legal principles applied in reaching the decision to dismiss the RoM application.