9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted in the appeal and also in the written submissions do not find mention at all which is a mistake; that the Supreme Court has held in the case of Standard Radiators Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, 2002 (143) E.L.T. 24 (S.C.) that the Tribunal is the last fact finding authority and, therefore, it must discuss the facts in some detail and not cursorily. The facts and documents according to the application which do not find mention in the Final Order are as under: (1) During the entire period, no sample was ever drawn by the Department from the inputs received by the applicants in the manufacture of steel ingots, etc. (2) No seizure or any physical verification of any of the inputs received by the applicants during the relevant period was ever mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certificates obtained from the Chartered Engineers and two certificates obtained from other consumers do not find any reference in the Final Order. (13) That similarly the Board s Circular No. 27/89, dated 21-9-89 does not find any reference in the Final Order. (14) The Final Order has been passed in respect of classification of turnings and borings, old/broken engineering goods, punched steel metal containers and other broken articles of iron steel, while according to the Assistant Commissioner's list of invoices, the petitioners did not use these materials. 3. The learned Advocate, therefore, prayed that these mistakes may be admitted and the Final Order may be recalled for fresh hearing in the light of the various decisions cited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce issued by Superintendent of Central Excise is valid for a period of six months from the date of issue. The learned SDR also mentioned that the issue related to availability of Notification No. 208/83-C.E. has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhupindra Steels (P) Ltd. v. CCE, 2002 (145) E.L.T. 284 (S.C.) = 2002 (52) RLT 505 (S.C.) wherein the Supreme Court has held that To claim exemption under the Notification No. 208/83, the Appellants have to show under what Sub-Item the inputs used by them fall. The Appellants have claimed benefit of the notification on the ground that input falls under Sub-Item 8. In our view, the ends of flats cannot be pieces which are roughly shaped by rolling or forging. Sub-Item 8 deals with pi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd cannot be something which would have to be established by long drawn process by reasoning on points of which there may conceivably be two opinions. It has been held that a decision on a debatable point of law cannot be a mistake apparent from the record . Further, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has held in the case of Dinkar Khindria Dinesh Khindria v. CCE, New Delhi, 2000 (118) E.L.T. 77 (Tri. - LB) = 2000 (38) RLT 442 (CEGAT - LB) that The power of rectification of mistake is a limited power and this power is restricted to rectification of the mistakes apparent from the record calling for amendment of the order. A decision on a debatable point of law or facts is not a mistake apparent from the record. Rectification of mistake doe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
