2002 (9) TMI 173 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of impugned order of the Tribunal dated 15-2-2002 regarding refund claim rejection.

Analysis:
The applicants sought rectification of the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 15-2-2002, which rejected their refund claim against the Order-in-appeal dated 27-2-2001 by the Commissioner (Appeals). The applicants detailed alleged mistakes in the impugned order, including the claim being consequential to a previous order, duty payment under coercion, appeal as protest, admissibility of additional evidence, and correspondence with the department. The Counsel reiterated these alleged mistakes and requested correction. The SDR contended that the alleged mistakes were not apparent on the record and argued against rehearing the appeal under the guise of a ROM. The Tribunal reviewed the record, which showed the background of the refund claim and subsequent rejections leading to the appeal. The Tribunal held the refund claim to be time-barred and dismissed the appeal based on this ground.

The grounds raised by the applicants, such as the claim being consequential to a previous order, duty payment under protest, appeal as protest, and admissibility of additional evidence, were considered by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal found these grounds to pertain to the merits of the case and not as mistakes apparent on the face of the impugned order. The Tribunal emphasized that the question of whether the refund claim was time-barred was a factual determination already decided against the applicants. The Tribunal also addressed the admissibility of additional evidence, highlighting that it was within the Tribunal's discretion to disallow such evidence based on the case's circumstances. The Tribunal clarified that the applicants' arguments did not establish any mistakes in the impugned order that warranted its recall.

Regarding the contention that the refund claim was in pursuance of a previous Tribunal order, the Tribunal explained that the previous order did not grant the applicants the right to claim a refund. The Tribunal concluded that no mistake of fact or law was apparent on the face of the record in passing the impugned order. The Tribunal further emphasized that the ROM could not be used to seek a rehearing of the appeal on debatable questions of fact or law. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the ROM application and dismissed it accordingly.