9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (7) TMI 462 - AT - Central ExciseRectification of mistake - Clandestine manufacture and removal of goods - Notification No.24/2005-CE(NT), dt.13.05.2005 - Validity of nomination of Chief Commissioner, Central Excise Vadodara - Held that - order dated 30.10.2006 issued by CBEC, Ministry of Finance is not found enclosed with the ROM application filed and was also not produced during the course of hearing when the order 2015 (2) TMI 1006 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD was passed. Copy of the same alongwith its covering letter dated 22.11.2012 was produced before the Bench during the hearing held today. It is observed from the order 2015 (2) TMI 1006 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD that appeals were dismissed for for a proper authorisation not only on the ground that appropriate order/ notification from the appropriate authority, authorising the Chief Commissioner to sign the review order, was not existing but also dismissed on other procedural requirements on the basis of cases decided by coordinate benches indicated in order dated 24.10.2014, passed by this Bench. Any contrary decision now brought on record was not relied upon before the Bench while deciding the main appeal and not even mentioned in the ROM application. - As the ground raised now were not existing/raised at the time of deciding the main appeal, therefore, it can not be said that there was any mistake apparent from the face of records - Rectification denied.
Issues:
1. Validity of ROM application filed by Revenue regarding the order dated 24.10.2014. 2. Nomination of Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara for review of Orders-in-Original. 3. Compliance with procedural requirements and authorization for review orders. 4. Application of relevant case laws and judgments in the ROM application. Analysis: 1. The Revenue filed a ROM application challenging the order dated 24.10.2014, citing the nomination of Chief Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara for review purposes. The ROM application lacked the key office order dated 30.10.2006 from CBEC nominating the Chief Commissioner, which was crucial for authorization. During the hearing, the missing order was presented, but it was noted that the appeals were dismissed for lack of proper authorization and procedural requirements, as per the order dated 24.10.2014. 2. The argument put forth by the Revenue was based on the proper nomination of the Chief Commissioner, supported by case laws like Commissioner of Service Tax vs. L.R. Sharma and Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Standard Surfactants Limited. However, the Respondent's representative contended that these issues were not raised in the ROM application initially, nor were they discussed during the main appeal. The Respondent relied on the case law of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vs. Hindustan Zinc Limited to support their stance. 3. The Tribunal reviewed the case records and found that the ROM application did not present any new grounds that were not considered during the main appeal. The absence of the necessary authorization and procedural compliance, as highlighted in the order dated 24.10.2014, led to the rejection of the ROM application. The judgment emphasized that any contrary decisions or new arguments must be raised during the main appeal and included in the ROM application for consideration. 4. Referring to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur vs. Hindustan Zinc Limited, the Tribunal concluded that since the issues raised in the ROM application were not part of the main appeal proceedings, there was no apparent mistake in the records. Therefore, the ROM application filed by the Revenue was dismissed based on the principle that new grounds or arguments should have been raised and considered during the main appeal, in line with legal precedents. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the ROM application, the nomination of the Chief Commissioner for review purposes, procedural compliance, and the application of relevant case laws, ultimately leading to the rejection of the ROM application by the Tribunal.
|
