9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondents. [Order per : A.C.C. Unni, Member (J)]. - Shri J.S. Agarwal, ld. Advocate appearing in the ROM Application filed by Shri Sandeep Batra submits that the prayer made in the ROM Application is for recall of Final Order Nos. A/875-877/98-NB (DB), dated 9-10-1998 by which three appeals filed respectively by (i) M/s. Nova Udyog Ltd., (ii) M/s. Maharashtra Steels Ltd. and (iii) Shri Sand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal while disposing of the three appeals by one combined order, no finding had been given on the submissions made by appellant, Shri Sandeep Batra in his appeal. Ld. Counsel submitted that this was a mistake apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, the Final Order may be recalled and the mistake rectified. 3. Shri M.M. Dube, ld. JDR submitted in reply that the three appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeals were also closely inter-connected. While the main charge against the two appellants, viz. M/s. Nova Udyog Ltd. and M/s. Maharashtra Steels Ltd. was that they were involved in the clandestine production, removal and receipt of stainless steel flats and billets, the allegation against Shri Sandeep Batra was that of abetment and penalty was imposed on him under Rule 209A of the Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Commissioner for affording an opportunity to cross examine the witness, and since sustainability of allegation of abetment under Rule 209A will depend on the result of the remand proceedings, we find that the non-recording of any findings in the said Final Order about the submissions made by Shri Sandeep Batra does not amount to a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
