9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i, Member (J)]. This is a ROM Application filed by the above-named applicants praying for recall of Final Order No. A/1204/97-NB, dated 26-12-1997 [1999 (109) E.L.T. 679 (Tribunal)] and for rectifying a mistake apparent on the face of the record appearing in paragraph 6 of the order. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants, Shri Ravinder Narain submits that while disposing of the appellant s app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment holding that the demand of duty under Rule 196 will be governed by the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. He, therefore submits that having regard to the decision of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court, the impugned Final Order may be recalled and the mistake pointed out above rectified. In this connection, he relied on two earlier decisions of this Tribunal, viz., Vishwaka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records. It is observed that in paragraph 6 of the Final Order referred to above, the Tribunal had cited and relied on its own decision in U.P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. reported in 1995 (79) E.L.T. 179, in which it was held that the limitation prescribed under Section 11A will not be applicable to cases arising under Rule 196. There is no mention of the Allahabad High Court judgment referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
