1999 (10) TMI 279 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Recall of Final Order Nos. A/875-877/98-NB (DB) dated 9-10-1998.
2. Mistake apparent on the face of the record regarding the disposal of the appeal filed by Shri Sandeep Batra.
3. Common and inter-related facts of the appeals filed by M/s. Nova Udyog Ltd., M/s. Maharashtra Steels Ltd., and Shri Sandeep Batra.
4. Allegations against the appellants and the decision to remand the matter for cross-examination.
5. Sustainability of the allegation of abetment under Rule 209A.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed a ROM Application seeking the recall of Final Order Nos. A/875-877/98-NB (DB) dated 9-10-1998, which remanded three appeals to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut for cross-examination. The Tribunal had remanded the appeals to afford the appellants an opportunity to cross-examine Shri O.P. Singh, Inspector.

2. The counsel for Shri Sandeep Batra argued that the Tribunal's Final Order did not provide any findings on the submissions made by Shri Sandeep Batra in his appeal against the penalty imposed under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules. The counsel contended that this omission was a mistake apparent on the face of the record and requested the Final Order to be recalled and rectified.

3. The appeals by M/s. Nova Udyog Ltd., M/s. Maharashtra Steels Ltd., and Shri Sandeep Batra stemmed from the same impugned order and shared common and inter-related facts. The Tribunal disposed of these appeals collectively due to their close connection and commonality in facts.

4. The Tribunal examined the interconnected nature of the appeals, where M/s. Nova Udyog Ltd. and M/s. Maharashtra Steels Ltd. were accused of clandestine activities, while Shri Sandeep Batra faced allegations of abetment under Rule 209A. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to allow cross-examination of Shri O.P. Singh, Inspector, to substantiate the charges against the appellants.

5. Given that the primary allegation of clandestine activities was against the other two appellants, and the sustainability of the abetment allegation hinged on the remand proceedings, the Tribunal concluded that the absence of specific findings on Shri Sandeep Batra's submissions did not constitute a mistake on the record. Therefore, the request for rectification was deemed unnecessary, and the ROM Application was rejected for lack of merit.