9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 462X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2015 (2) TMI 1006 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] that appeals were dismissed for for a proper authorisation not only on the ground that appropriate order/ notification from the appropriate authority, authorising the Chief Commissioner to sign the review order, was not existing but also dismissed on other procedural requirements on the basis of cases decided by coordinate benches indicated in order dated 24.10.2014, passed by this Bench. Any contrary decision now brought on record was not relied upon before the Bench while deciding the main appeal and not even mentioned in the ROM application. - As the ground raised now were not existing/raised at the time of deciding the main appeal, therefore, it can not be said that there was any mistake apparent f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard Surfactants Limited [2013 (289) ELT 416 (All.)]. 3. Shri Willingdon Christian, (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Respondent argued that the issues raised by the learned AR were not raised in the ROM application filed before the Tribunal and were also not argued at the time of hearing of the main appeal. Learned Advocate relied upon the case law of Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vs. Hindustan Zinc Limited [2015 (318) ELT 614 (S.C.)]. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. ROM application has been filed by the Revenue on the ground that Chief Commissioner, Central Excise Vadodara was properly nominated by order dated 30.10.2006 of CBEC for the purpose of review of Orders-in-Original p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissed the application with the observations that the issue raised in the rectification application was not argued at the time of hearing of the main case. This aspect could not be disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the Department. 2. Having regard to the above, we do not find any error in the order dated 06th September, 2002 passed by CEGAT. 3. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 5. As the ground raised now were not existing/raised at the time of deciding the main appeal, therefore, it can not be said that there was any mistake apparent from the face of records as per the law laid down by the Apex Court. Accordingly, ROM application filed by the Revenue is rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in the Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
