9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 811X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent. ORDER This application filed by the department (appellant) says that there is an apparent mistake in Order No. A/291-294/2009/SMB/C-IV dated 15-6-2009 passed by this Bench in Appeals No. E/3468/03 & 3469/03 [2009 (248) E.L.T. 695 (Tri. - Mum.). It is submitted that an amendment brought to Rule 57CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 under Section 82 of the Finance Act, 2005 was overlooked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t a new case is sought to be made out at this stage, which, according to learned Counsel is not liable to be entertained under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act. In this connection, learned Counsel relies on Mohanlal Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - 2002 (145) E.L.T. 179 (Tri.-Del.), wherein it was held that any new case would not be made out under Section 129C of the Customs A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act had not been considered by the Tribunal in its final order. The aggrieved party filed an application for rectification of mistake. The Tribunal found that the relevant notification had not been cited before it at hearing stage of the appeal. It was found that a completely new case was sought to be made out through the ROM application. According to me, there is no parallel between the present c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t wrongly availed by a person was recoverable under Rule 571. It was further provided that such recovery mechanism could be pressed into service for the period March, 97 to March, 2000. This provision of law, which was in the statute book, when the final order was passed, was overlooked. Hence the present case is one in which there is a mistake which is glaring from the records or, in the language ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
