9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed in Appeal No. E/1485/88-D, E/3413/87-D and E/3419/87 read with Order No. M-242/91-D, dated 20-12-91 [1993 (66) E.L.T. 652 (Tri.)]. We have heard Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate for applicant and Shri M.K. Jain, learned Senior Departmental Representative. 2. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate submitted that the applicant had already moved two rectification applications in this matter and the same had already been disposed of by the Tribunal. He pointed out that there were further mistakes which required rectification as the same had not been dealt with effectively in the earlier two applications for rectification of mistakes. However, learned Advocate conceded that the Tribunal has now held by a Larger Bench decision in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposits made in this case, the same are to be verified and he does not seriously oppose for any direction which the Tribunal may give under its inherent powers. 4. We have carefully considered the pleas made by both the sides and have also perused the ROM Application. In this case, the applicant had moved three ROM Applications and the Tribunal has already disposed of the same by its Miscellaneous Order No. M-256/90-D dated 25-10-90, M-73/91-D, dated 18-3-91 [1994 (70) E.L.T. 736 (Tri.)] and M-242/91-D, dated 20-12-91. As per the Larger Bench decision in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (supra), the Larger Bench had held that second application for rectification of alleged mistake in an order rejecting the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember, 1989 and which was paid initially in terms of the stay order in that appeal was adjusted by the respondent against the demand alleged to be payable in pursuance of Central Excise Appeal No. 1485/88D. Thus an aggregate sum of Rs. 37,52,610.40 had been paid by the assessee in terms of the orders of the Tribunal which ought to be adjusted against the demand held to be payable in addition to the adjustment of the duty on split yarn paid by the assessee which is somewhat equal to the demand of duty on mother yarn. Thus effectively the appellant is entitled to a refund of approximately Rs. 37 lacs as against a demand of Rs. 1,50,45,373 sought to be enforced by the respondent. The Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
