9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 230 - AT - Central ExciseInclusion of assessable value of acoustic enclosures in assessable value - ROM applications - Held that - In the present case, we find that the Tribunal has given its detailed findings and held in favour of the respondents except acoustic enclosures. Therefore, the citation relied by the respondents are clearly distinguishable and we do not find any merit in the applications filed by respondents for restoration of appeals. Accordingly, all the three ROA applications are dismissed. As regards ROM applications, we find that there is no apparent mistake on records and respondent s plea for rectification of certain facts beyond the scope of SCN amounts to re-appreciation of the Tribunal s order and the Tribunal has not empowered to review its order making a long drawn exercise to ascertain the error if any which is not intention of law relating to rectification of mistake. In the guise of MA (ROM), appellant requires the Tribunal to review its own order to accommodate the present applications, which is not the power conferred on the Tribunal. In this regard we rely on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Airport Authority of India Vs. Commr.(2015 (11) TMI 135 - SUPREME COURT ), Hon ble High Court decision in the case of Unworth Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur (CG) (2014 (10) TMI 185 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT ) and the Tribunal s decision in the case of Shalimar Ispat Udyog Vs. CCE, Raipur (2014 (2) TMI 716 - CESTAT NEW DELHI), are relevant to the facts of the present case. By respectfully following the Apex Court and the Hon ble High Court decisions and the Tribunal order as above, we hold that there is no apparent mistake in the final order dated 03.07.2013 and any relook to the order as a whole to bring a change to the result of the order, shall amount to review and Tribunal lacks power for the same. Accordingly, all the three ROM applications are rejected.
Issues:
1. Restoration of appeals filed by the respondent. 2. Rectification of appeals against Tribunal's Final Order. Analysis: Issue 1: Restoration of Appeals The respondent filed miscellaneous applications for restoration of appeals against Tribunal's Final Order, where the Tribunal allowed the Revenue appeal regarding the inclusion of assessable value of acoustic enclosures. The Ld. Advocate for the respondent argued that despite multiple adjournments requested due to various reasons, the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte and passed the order. The respondent sought restoration of appeals to present their case against the Revenue appeals. The Ld. AR opposed the restoration, stating that the Tribunal had examined the issues extensively, rejecting most Revenue appeals except for the inclusion of acoustic enclosures. The Tribunal found that the respondent's grounds for restoration were not merited, as the Tribunal had provided detailed findings and decided the case on merits, dismissing the restoration applications. Issue 2: Rectification of Appeals Regarding the rectification of appeals, the respondent argued that certain facts in the order were mistakes apparent on record, requiring rectification. The Ld. AR contended that there was no apparent mistake and that the respondent's plea amounted to seeking a review of the Tribunal's order, which was beyond the Tribunal's power. The Tribunal held that the respondent's request for rectification went beyond the scope of rectifying mistakes and was more of a review, citing legal precedents. The Tribunal rejected all rectification applications, emphasizing that a relook at the order to change the result would be a review, which the Tribunal lacked the power to do. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed all six miscellaneous applications, three for restoration of appeals and three for rectification of appeals, after thorough examination and consideration of the arguments presented by both parties. The Tribunal upheld its original order, emphasizing that the decisions were made based on detailed findings and merits of the case, and that seeking restoration or rectification did not align with the legal principles governing such applications.
|
