9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 615X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f ROM wants us to re-appreciate various evidences and come to a different conclusion. The scope of the ROM is explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RDC Concrete (India) P. Ltd. (2011 (8) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) and we are in agreement with the learned AR that in view of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ROM, we cannot entertain re-appreciation of evidence. - Decided against assessee. - Application C/ROM/92003/15-Mum, Appeal C/120/06-Mum - - - Dated:- 23-3-2015 - P K Jain, Member (T) And Ramesh Nair, Member (J),JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Vipin Kumar Jain, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr D Nagvenkar, Additional Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per: P K Jain: The applicant filed applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned AR further submitted that a perusal of the application would indicate that it runs into 14 pages and in the tabulations given from page 2 onwards, it would be seen that on the left-hand side, the applicant has listed out the reasoning of the Tribunal while on the right hand side, they have expressed their views differing with the views of the Tribunal. Obviously, this cannot be considered as a mistake which is obvious and patent mistake. 3.2 The learned AR further submitted that the Tribunal vide their order No. C-III/708 to 710/WZB/2003 dated 17.4.2003, had heard the whole appeal and after hearing both sides, the matter was remanded to the original authority for the limited purpose as stated in para 3 which is reproduced belo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her submitted that the applicant is wasting judicial time and a heavy cost must be imposed on the applicant to misuse the facility of filing the ROM application. 4. We considered the rival submissions. We find that this Tribunal vide order dated 17.4.2003 has remanded the matter for limited purpose. Further we find that in the ROM application which runs into 14 pages, the applicant has listed out a large number of points. We have gone through each of these points and we do not find any obvious and patent mistake on the facts. In fact the reasons for differing with the so called facts given by the applicant have not been accepted by the Tribunal in the order dated 19.8.2014. We entirely agree with the contention of the learned AR that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
