9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 928X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A335-39/99-NB(DB), dated 14-5-1999 [1999 (112) E.L.T. 84 (T)]. By that final order, order impugned therein was modified to some extent. Application for modification of that final order was filed on 16-7-1999 as E/ROM/124/99-NB. Subsequently, another application praying for rectifying the mistakes in final order was filed on 7-8-1999 as E/ROM/137/99-NB. These ROM applications were posted before Members who passed the final order in the appeals. After hearing, the ROMs Members passed Misc. Order No. M/209-13/99-NB(DB). In that order, the Judicial Member took the view that ROM application has only to be rejected, while the Vice President s view was to recall the earlier order dated 4-6-1999 and to post the appeal for fresh hearing on the vario ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... some decisions of this Tribunal. I think this ground cannot be availed of by the appellant in this case because the plea of limitation was dealt with by the Tribunal in passing the final order. In Paragraph 6 of the final order this Tribunal observed that : Having regard to the failure of the appellants to produce any duty paying documents and their failure to account the excisable goods for the period 1993- 94 and 1994-95, the duty demand of Rs. 53,55,862 does not suffer from any infirmity. Since 1993-94 and 1994-95 fall within the extended period and outside the normal period of six months it is not now open to raise a contention that the plea of limitation was not dealt with by this Tribunal in the final order. So the decision re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Tribunal. These two reasons mentioned by the Hon ble Vice President can under no circumstance fail within the scope of section 35C(2). Section 36A of the Central Excise Act has no application to the facts of this case. Section 36A relates to presumption as to documents in certain cases, in which prosecution is launched by the Department, mentioned therein. In the instant case no proceedings have been initiated before any Court wherein presumption regarding genuineness of any document was in issue. So the first ground made by the Learned Member cannot hold good. Regarding the second ground mentioned in paragraph 18, it is worthwhile to note that such an important point was neither argued before the adjudicating authority nor before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
