9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a 11 at page 8 of the Final Order No. 136/96-C, dated 12-3-1996, a mistake has crept in and that the sentence instead of reading as The extended period has therefore, incorrectly applied should have been as The extended period has therefore, incorrectly been applied . Both the sides agree that the mistake is apparent on the face of the record. We find that this is a typographical error. We accordingly accede to the request and allow the ROM application of the Department. The correct sentence is : The extended period has therefore, been correctly applied , and the same should be substituted in place of the existing sentence. 4. In the ROM application filed by M/s. Illavia Enterprises, the learned Advocate raised three issues. It was pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that this aspect could be argued at the time of the appeal only and not at the time of arguing on the ROM. ROM has a limited scope and is meant for correcting mistakes that might have crept in the order in question. In the result the argument fails. 5. The second issue that was argued before us was that the Tribunal relied on their own judgment in the case of Naturelle Health Product v. C.C.E. reported in 1996 (81) E.L.T. 578 (Tribunal) = 1996 (12) RLT 96. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that this judgment of the Tribunal was printed in RLT some times in January, 1996 whereas the actual hearings in the case took place on 21st and 22nd December, 1995. The ld. Counsel argued that thus the opportunity to rebut the findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the record. We find that in this case also there was no mistake on the face of the record. 6. The third issue that was contested before us was that a letter dated 14-10-1993 which is available at page 74 of the paper book. It was brought to our notice that in Para 6 of the Tribunal s order in dispute, the Tribunal observed that The letter however, does not clearly say that the product manufactured is an ayurvedic medicine . The learned Counsel specifically read the contents of the letter and pointed out that there was a categorical submission in the letter that the product manufactured by the applicants was an ayurvedic medicine. The ld. Counsel therefore, pleaded that this was a mistake apparent. The learned SDR submitted that we canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
