9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e grounds stated in the application. It is submitted by her that the Tribunal had placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of M/s. General Engineering Works Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur reported in 2007 (212) E.L.T.295 (S.C.). The appellants relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner Vs M/s. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd., reported in 2006 (203) E.L.T.A.184 (S.C.) wherein a similar issue was remanded with directions to decide on the basis of Cost Auditor's report. In the present case, the appellant produced the Cost Accountant's report. So, she now pleaded that the Tribunal might consider remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal has analysed the issue on limitation and therefore, the plea of the appellant to reconsider the said issue or to waive penalties is not acceptable. She submitted that by no means and ROM application can be converted to an appeal and rehear or redo the order entirely. It is submitted by her that there is no error apparent on the face of record that requires rectification. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The appellant has filed the above application to rectify the alleged error in the impugned Final Order No.40345/2018, dated 05.02.2018 of the Tribunal. The counsel for appellant has pointed out certain errors in the final order. After hearing the submissions as well as perusal of the grounds stated in the ROM application, we do not find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed by the Tribunal. However, the said order of Tribunal was not produced before us at the time of hearing the appeal. At the time of passing the order, the learned advocate had relied upon the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). However, since the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. General Engineering Works (supra) was on the very same issue, the Tribunal followed the same. In M/s. Mahindra Ugine Steel Co. Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune reported in 2003 (157) E.L.T. (Tri. -Mum.) the Tribunal had held, inter alia, that when raw material is supplied by customer to the appellant for manufacture on job work basis, the value of scrap is not includib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
