2000 (9) TMI 281 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Application for recall of order and rectification of mistakes in a legal judgment.

Analysis:
1. The applicant filed a ROM application seeking various reliefs, including recalling an order made by the Bench on a previous date. The original order dated 23-6-2000 pertained to an early hearing application and an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara, against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The applicant sought to withdraw the early hearing application, which was reflected in the order made on the said date.

2. The applicant's counsel argued that the appeal could not have been decided without proper notice of hearing, emphasizing the principles of natural justice. Reference was made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Solar Pesticides Pvt. Ltd., highlighting the issue of unjust enrichment in relation to captive consumption. The counsel cited relevant legal provisions and previous judgments to support the argument that the appeal should not have been disposed of without proper notification to the party.

3. The Departmental Representative contended that the refund had already been granted, rendering the question of refund moot. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both sides, with the applicant's counsel expressing confidence in the Bench members and proceeding with the judgment.

4. The Tribunal observed that the issue had been covered by the Supreme Court's judgment, which was considered the law of the land. The Tribunal justified its decision to take up the appeal itself, given the clarity provided by the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter.

5. The Tribunal reiterated the importance of natural justice and noted the absence of reasons for the applicant's representative not being present during the hearing. It was highlighted that the applicant's attempt to raise certain points through the rectification of mistake application was not permissible and should have been pursued through the appropriate legal procedures.

6. The Tribunal emphasized that the provisions of the Act should be followed, and attempts to circumvent them indirectly should not be entertained. It was clarified that the applicant's absence during the hearing did not warrant the raising of new pleas through the rectification application.

7. The Tribunal concluded by advising parties to pursue miscellaneous applications with diligence, especially considering the high volume of appeals being handled by the Bench. The application for recall and rectification was disposed of with the aforementioned observations.