9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the demand of duty and penalty has been set aside by this Tribunal vide order dated 02/01/2007 in Appeal No.E/4172/2005. Therefore, there was no question of imposition of any penalty. This is a strong reason for rectification of the order dated 28/02/2017 in Appeal No.E/222/2006 - ROM application allowed. - E/ROM/92487/17, E/222/06 - A/90891/2017 - Dated:- 20-7-2017 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Applicant - Represented by: Ms. Anjali Hirawat, Advocate Respondent - Represented by: Mr. H.M. Dixit, Asst. Comm. (AR) ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair 1. The present application is for rectification of mistake in the final order No.A/86109/17/EB dated 28/02/2017 on the followin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e applicants under Section 11AC. 13. The present application for rectification of mistake is being made by the applicants herein for rectification of the following mistakes which are apparent from the face of the records. 14. The Hon ble CESTAT has not considered the request of the applicants that the Hon ble CESTAT had reserved the order in appeal No.E/4172/2005 which is directly connected with the present appeal of the applicants and therefore the matter maybe adjourned till the outcome of the Appeal No.E/4172/2005. The Counsel did not argue any other point. The applicants submit that they had not argued the submissions which have been recorded in para 3 of the Final Order dated 28/02/2017. 15. The Hon ble Tribunal in para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncy. It clearly appears that the Counsel was not even aware of the other appeals filed by the appellant at the time of hearing of the Appeal No.E/222/2006 of the Revenue. It is also observed that in Appeal No.E/4172/2005 of the appellant, the order was pronounced on 02/01/2017 and the order in appeal No.E/222/2006 was pronounced on 28/02/2017, i.e. almost after two months. The applicant did not care to submit a copy of the order dated 02/01/2017 in appeal No.E/222/2006 to this Tribunal for considering the same for disposal of Appeal No.E/4172/2006. This further shows that neither the Counsel was attentive nor the applicant, therefore blame made on the Tribunal is abuse of Court by the applicant as well as Counsel. However, it is a fact on r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
