9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the order cannot be sought under the garb of ROM. The relief sought by the applicant, which is relatable to the long drawn process of arguments by both the sides cannot be said to be mistake apparent from the records. The present ROM application is rejected on the ground of non-maintainability. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mistake in the order of the Tribunal passed on their R.O.M. being Miscellaneous Order No.05/2001/NB[DB]. It stands pleaded in the said application that the miscellaneous order passed by the Tribunal show that the contentions raised by the appellant were not dealt with in the manner it was contended and as such, fresh order should be passed after considering the grounds raised in the appeal memorandum as also in the R.O.M. application. The said application is listed before us for disposal. 5. Learned A.R. appearing for the Revenue raises preliminary objections as regards the maintainability of the said application itself. He submits that the assessee's appeal was disposed of by the Tribunal vide its order passed on 14.03.2000. Thereafter R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... party. Unless and until a party to the appeal is in a position to go through and study the order, the party cannot claim to be aggrieved by the mistake apparent from the records. Attention also stands drawn to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Sunitadevi Singhania Hospital Trust V/s Union of India reported as 2009 (233) E.L.T. 295 (S.C.) observing that though statutory limitation is to be observed but Tribunal failed to notice that it has inherent powers of recalling its order if sufficient cause shown, limitation is not attracted for rectifying mistake to do justice. Similarly by drawing our attention to the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court decision in the case of M/s Garlon Polyfab Industries V/s Commissioner of Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R.O.M. application was heard by the bench in the presence of appellant's representative and the order was passed on 04.01.2001. The appellants have not bothered to find out the outcome of the decision of R.O.M. for a period of 17 years and have subsequently procured a copy of the same in the year 2017 though no specific date stands provided by them. It is further noticed that providing of a copy of the order by the Registry at the request of the assessee itself cannot be considered to be a date of receipt of the order by the assessee. Registry is bound to provide copies on being asked and the same would not establish the date of providing a copy as the date of receipt of the order. There are admitted latches on the part of the appellant to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva reported as 2015 (323) E.L.T. 617 (Tri.-Mumbai) laying down that there is no provision in law for filing ROM application against the order of the Tribunal deciding earlier ROM. Inasmuch as the present application prays for recall of the earlier miscellaneous order passed on the earlier ROM application, by following the above referred decision we hold that the same is not maintainable. In any case and in any view of the matter, we have gone through the miscellaneous application seeking rectification in the earlier order, we note that apart from making a bald request to recall the earlier order, no sufficient reasons stand given by the applicant for the same. The prayer seems to be related to confiscation and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
