9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring of the Appeal involving the question of eligibility of the Appellants to the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. without producing the requisite certificate at the time of clearance of the goods, the Advocate for the Appellants had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd., 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.) which fully support their case and had been followed by the Tribunal in many cases; that the Tribunal, instead of following the said judgment of the Supreme Court, which is the law of the land, has followed the judgment in the case of Eagle Flask Industries Ltd., 2004 (171) E.L.T. 296 (S.C.) without stating how and why the ratio of judgment in Manglore Chemicals Fertilizers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (g) No Appeal lies sans grievance. (h) Case Law on judicial discipline. 3.Opposing the prayer, Shri U. Raja Ram, learned Departmental Representative, submitted that the Final order in question has been passed by the Tribunal after considering all the submissions made by the Applicant. The Tribunal did not find any substance in the contention of the learned Advocate that production of Certificate as required by the Notification for availing the benefit of exemption is a mere procedural formality"; that thus the question of applying the ratio of the decision in Mangalore Chemical Fertilizers does not arise; that further the Apex Court recently in the case of Eagle Flask Industries has held that "for availing benefits under an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision on a debatable point of law or facts is not a mistake apparent from the record and the debatable issue could not be subject of an order of rectification. Rectification of mistake does not envisage the rectification of an alleged error of judgment." The mistake, according to the learned Senior Counsel, in the Final order of the Tribunal, is not considering the condition specified in the notification as a procedural one and in not applying the ratio of the decision in the case of Mangalore Fertilizers Chemicals v. Deputy Commissioner, 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.) and applying instead the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Pune, 2004 (171) E.L.T. 296 (S.C.) = 2000 (64) RLT 363 (SC). T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
