9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of Tribunal s decision in case of M/s. Sangam Processors (Bhilwara) Ltd. [2001 (127) E.L.T. 679 (Tri.-LB)], laying down that gallery portion is not required to be taken into consideration while fixing APC, cannot be extended to them. The appeal was also allowed on the bar of unjust enrichment as the respondents were not able to establish that the incidence of duty has not been passed on to their customers. Learned advocate submits that the said order was challenged before Hon ble High Court by way of filing writ petition, but the same was withdrawn by them so as to file ROM application. As such, submits the learned advocate that though the application was filed on 21-7-08, in respect of the order passed in 2003, i.e. beyond the limitatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng our attention to various decisions, it stand pleaded before us that the scope of ROM is limited only to the mistakes, which are apparent on the face of record, and it is well settled that parties to litigation cannot seek review of the order under the garb of rectification of mistake application. 3. After considering the submissions made by both sides, we find that admittedly, ROM application stand filed after a period of almost 5 years from the date of passing of the order. Learned advocate has relied upon the Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides for exclusion of time during which plaintiff was prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable to be rejected on the said short ground itself. 4. Even as regards merits of the case, we find that the Tribunal s order passed on 18-11-03 was in respect of two grounds (1) on the ground of APC having not been challenged and (2) on the ground of unjust enrichment. As regards the first issue, the law during the relevant period was declared by Tribunal against the assessee and Mumbai High Court judgment in case of Om Textiles was not available. The declaration of law by Mumbai High Court in the year 2006 cannot entitle the assessees for recalling of the order passed 3 years back. If that be so, there would be no end to such applications made for recalling of the orders passed long time back and the purpose of attaining finality in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
