9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h would have justified the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - The appeal does not disclose any substantial question of law – Decided against Appellant. - Central Excise Appeal No. 129 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 21-2-2013 - Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and A.A. Sayed, JJ. Shri Arshad Hidayatullah, Sr. Advocate with H.G. Dharmadhikari and D.A. Bhalerao, for the Appellant. Shri R. Asokan with Jitendra B. Mishra, for the Respondent. ORDER This appeal arises from a decision of the CESTAT dated 16 July, 2012 [2012 (286) E.L.T. 610 (Tribunal)] on an application for rectification that was filed under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal has rejected the application filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ROM application were not argued before the Tribunal at the time of personal hearing. 3. The submission of Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the Tribunal is duty bound to consider and deal with every one of the grounds urged in the Memorandum of Appeal even though these are not raised or advanced during the course of the submissions. We do not find any merit in the submission. The Tribunal is indeed duty bound to address those grounds which are placed in issue, during the course of the oral arguments. Where in a given case, in the considered exercise of a professional judgment of Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant - in this case learned Senior Counsel - Counsel has not considered it appropriate to raise ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the questions so framed. The judgment is, therefore, clearly distinguishable. Similarly in the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Abhay Industries v. Union of India - 2011 (269) E.L.T. 330 (Bom.), the Division Bench had noted the submission that most of the contentions which have been urged in the written submissions that were filed in respect of the arguments advanced before the Tribunal had not been considered. It was in that view of the matter that there was a remand. Similarly, in the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Yokogawa Blue Star Ltd. - 2010 (19) S.T.R. 482 (Kar.), it was held that the Tribunal committed an error in not considering the ground urged by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
