9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and details. The Tribunal in the impugned order has considered the quantification of duty demand also. Further, the contentions put forward by the appellant in this ROM touches the main issue under consideration in the appeal - These are not errors apparent on the face of record. In order to find out what is the error that is being pointed out by the appellant requires long arguments and in fact, the appeal itself will have to be reheard as a whole. The application for ROM cannot be used as a guise for rehearing an appeal - ROM Application dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made a request to the Tribunal to give a direction to the department to furnish required documents to the appellants. In spite of such directions, the department did not provide any documents. The Tribunal had directed the appellant to file a calculation sheet on the basis of the documents supplied by the department. Though the Ld. Counsel for the appellants had given a letter to the Commissioner (AR) dated 23.06.2016, the department did not furnish any documents. That when the case was taken up on 18.01.2017, though the appellant submitted these facts, the matter was heard in a hurried manner and without giving a fair opportunity to the appellants, the case was taken up for disposal. The Ld. Counsel submitted that 4% of burning loss was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had given directions in respect of documents requested by the appellants. Thereafter, the case has been posted to various dates such as 02.11.2016, 22.11.2016 and 18.01.2017. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 18.01.2017, the appellant has not filed an application informing that even after request they have not received any documents. So the contention of the appellant that they were not given sufficient opportunity and there is violation of natural justice is not tenable. The appeal was of the year 2007 and the same was taken up for disposal only on 18.01.2017. The appellant had enough time to be ready with necessary documents and details. The Tribunal in the impugned order has considered the quantification of duty demand also. Fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
