9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t can be considered as an error apparent on the face of the record. When the ROM is considered in the light of the Apex Court's decision, it cannot be said that there is an error apparent on the face of record. In the name of ROM review of the appeal is not permissible - ROM application dismissed. - ST/ROW/50332/2018 in Appeal No.50164/2016 - MO/50281/2018-CU[DB] - Dated:- 15-5-2018 - Shri S. K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Rep. by Shri G.R.Singh, DR for the appellant. Rep. by Shri Jai Kumar, Shri Kartik Jindal and Shri Ajinkaya Tiwari, DR for the respondent. Per V. Padmanabhan: The present ROM application has been filed against the Final Order No.50665/2018 dated 19. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fically brought to our notice the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Roots Multiclean Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai 2016 (336) ELT 25 (Mad.), wherein the Hon'ble High Court had observed that It is settled law that, when the mistakes are on account of :- (a) palpable mistakes, (b)orders passed on inapplicable statutory provisions, (c) points raised in appeal, but not considered , and (d) wrong application of the judgement of the High Court, are mistakes that could be rectified by the Tribunal (as mistakes being apparent on the face of the record). (iv) He submitted that the Final Order in question is required to be recalled since palpable mistakes are there as well as the points raised in the appeal have not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts Multiclean Ltd. (supra). 6. After hearing both sides and perusal of record, it appears that the cited final Order dated 19.02.2018 is a detailed speaking order and has been passed after taking note of all the written and oral arguments raised. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajkot Vs. Stock Exchange Ltd, - 2008 (230) ELT 385 (SC) has laid down the ratio as to what can be considered as an error apparent on the face of the record. The Apex Court has observed as under:- 37 . In our judgment, therefore, a patent, manifest and self-evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or argument to establish it, can be said to be an error apparent on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
