9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocate, for the Appellant. Shri Rajeev Tandon, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - This ROM has been moved by the applicants seeking rectification of mistakes in the Final Order No. A/1012/02-NB (D), dated 29-8-2002 vide which their appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 24-2-2001 of the Commissioner of Central Excise rejecting the claim of abatement of duty for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 96ZO(2) were not complied with by the applicants in regard to the filing of continuous closure certificate. The documents in this regard had been ignored; (iv) the applicants produced the copy of the order of the Commissioner who allowed the abatement in respect of a particular furnace which did not work in the factory for a particular period, but that order has been overlooked; (v) in an iden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e grounds had been reiterated by the Counsel before us while contending that the ROM deserves to be allowed. The learned SDR on the other hand has refuted all these grounds and contended that even on these assumed grounds put forth by the applicants, the impugned Final Order of the Tribunal cannot be recalled as all these grounds relate to the merits of the case and not to any mistake of fact of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stituted a factory in terms of sub-clause 3 of the erstwhile 3A of the Central Excise Act. The fact that the Bench did not accept any of the contentions raised by the applicants in their appeal, is no ground to hold that the impugned final order suffers from mistakes of fact or law. The grounds raised by the applicants are debatable and the Tribunal on these debatable grounds has taken a particula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
