2001 (1) TMI 283 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Recall of Tribunal's Final Order and stay order sought by the appellants.
2. Legality and propriety of Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing stay application without hearing the appellants.
3. Compliance with pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts.
4. Maintainability of appeal and stay application before the Tribunal.
5. Challenge of validity of stay order of the Commissioner (Appeals).
6. Scope of Tribunal in a ROM application.
7. Rectification of mistake in judgment.

Analysis:

1. The appellants sought the recall of the Tribunal's Final Order and stay order, which were both dated 25-10-1999. The appeal and stay application filed by them were initially rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) for non-deposit of the duty amount, leading to the dismissal of their appeal under Section 35F of the Act.

2. The appellants argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed their stay application without hearing them, making the Order-in-Appeal illegal and improper. They cited various legal precedents to support their contention, emphasizing the importance of due process in such matters.

3. The record shows that the appellants were issued a show cause notice for wrongly classifying their products, resulting in a duty demand and penalty imposition. Despite the Commissioner (Appeals) directing them to deposit the amounts demanded within three weeks, they failed to comply, leading to the dismissal of their appeal under Section 35F.

4. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and stay application of the appellants on the grounds of non-maintainability. The Tribunal held that the appellants could not challenge the stay order of the Commissioner (Appeals) indirectly, as it had become final and was not appealable.

5. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants could not challenge the validity of the stay order directly while filing the appeal against the Final Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35F. The Final Order was a consequence of non-compliance with the stay order, making the appeal not maintainable.

6. The Tribunal clarified the limited scope of a ROM application, stating that it cannot be treated as an appeal for rehearing and re-decision. Rectification of mistake is only for correcting a patent error in the judgment and does not encompass rectifying an alleged error of judgment.

7. Citing the Larger Bench decision in Dinkar Khindria case, the Tribunal concluded that the ROM application of the appellants deserved to be dismissed based on the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal principles established in the precedent.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the ROM application of the appellants, upholding the original decision and emphasizing the limitations of challenging interim orders in subsequent appeals.