9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this application was heard it appeared that the issue being small, the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal. This was so done. 2. The appellants were operating under the Hot Air Stenter Independent Textile Processors Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 2000. Initially the capacity was determined on the basis of 5.36 chambers. The request for redetermination was turned down by the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Chambers were evidently destroyed in the fire before the introduction of Notification Nos. 36/98 and 43/98 CE (NT) both dated 10-12-1998. The proper officer has determined the annual capacity of the production taking into consideration five Chambers and aggrieved by this, the Appellants had filed an Appeal in the Hon ble CEGAT. 3. I find that the impugned order was passed in ignorance of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng them personally on Friday, the 17th August, 2001 at 11.30 hrs. in connection with both the aforesaid Appeals. The Appellants and/or their Advocates are requested to take note and attend the hearing on the appointed date and time. Against this order the present appeal has been filed. 4. The appellant s claim is that once the appellate authority had passed an order it had no authority to m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al or typographical error(s) or other error apparent on the face of the record; but a substantive change in decision could only be made in accordance with law. 6. By applying the ratio of the judgment I find that the impugned order is wrong in law. 7. Shri B.B. Sarkar arguing for the department has two submissions. He submits that the case file could be called for to see whether the Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
