9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stay application for the pre-deposit of the duty amount firstly and later on dismissed their appeal for non-deposit of the amount, vide order dated 17-6-1999 were rejected. 2. The ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellants has sought the recall of the stay as well as Final order of the Tribunal on the ground the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the stay application of the appellants without hearing them and as such the Order-in-Appeal passed by him dismissing their appeal under Section 35F of the Act was illegal and improper. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on. 1. CEAT Ltd. v. Union of India - 1995 (109) E.L.T. 336, Bombay High Court. 2. Jesus Sales Corpn. v. Union of India - 1995 (75) E.L.T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner and moved stay application seeking waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 24/25-5-1999 dismissed their stay application and directed them to deposit the amounts demanded within three weeks. It also remains undisputed that they did not comply with the stay order and Commissioner (Appeals) through order dated 17-6-99 dismissed their appeal under Section 35F of the Act. 5. The appellants filed appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated 17-6-99 of the Commissioner (Appeals) and also moved stay application for dispensing with the pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts. Their appeal and stay application both were dismissed by the Tribunal through final order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Counsel wherein the cases were remanded, when the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals of the appellants therein, under Section 35F of the Act, cannot be made basis for recall of the impugned Final Order of the Tribunal. The scope of the Tribunal in a ROM application is quite limited. The ROM application cannot be treated as an appeal so as to rehear and re-decide the matter. The application for rectification of mistake lies only for correction of a patent mistake in the judgment. A decision on debatable point of law or facts cannot be taken as a mistake apparent on face of the record. Rectification of mistake does not envisage the rectification of an alleged error of judgment. In this context a reference may be made to the La ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
