Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2000 (12) TMI 200

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... benefit on the ground that the appellants had used the brand name of 'ARPEE' belonging to another unit. The Tribunal after due consideration of the matter, gave a detailed finding confirming the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad and held that appeal is not maintainable as they had used the brand name of 'ARPEE' belonging to another person. The Tribunal also considered the plea of time bar and held that there was wilful suppression of facts and extended period of limitation is invokable and relied on the finding in para 39 of the Order-in-Original passed by CCE, Hyderabad. The Tribunal also held that penalty was imposable as appellants had marketed the product by suppressing the fact from the knowledge .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion of mistake in ROM No. 307/98. The same was disposed of by Misc. Order 180/98, dated 31-3-1998 dealing with the points raised in the Misc. petition. In the said order, the Tribunal considered all the points which had been raised even on merits and after due consideration held that there was no mistake in the final order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also noted large number of judgments on merits, which was against the party and held that the issue was covered by the judgment of the Apex Court as well as Tribunal judgment and even on merits, appellants had not made out any case for reconsideration and hence application for rectification was dismissed. 5.Aggrieved by the dismissal of the ROM application, appellants have now file .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... been adjourned time and again and taken up for hearing on several days. Large number of judgments including the Larger Bench judgment covering the issue against the appellants was pointed out to subsequent Counsel Ms. Radhika Chandrasekar who filed written submissions and also argued at length. The arguments were heard on 12-12-2000, 19-12-2000 and 20-12-2000 when the appellant Shri R.P. Gupta also appeared and argued vehemently. Both the Counsel and the party persuaded the Tribunal to review its own order and also to entertain the ROM application on the plea that there was a mistake in not considering all the facts and materials dealing with the question on limitation in the matter. 8.Ld. DR S. Kannan appears and submits that second ROM .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unal has no powers to review its own order. This answers the point raised by appellant to seek review of the dismissal of ROM application. We notice that the Tribunal in the final order has considered in great detail the point of limitation raised by the party. The Tribunal has extracted the portion of the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and has confirmed the findings after arriving at the categorical finding that there is a clear suppression in the matter and hence the larger period is required to be confirmed. Even the penalty has been held to be imposable in view of suppression of facts. In this application before us, the Counsel and the party in person were mentioning and pointing out to the large number of evidence f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rticular order and does not amount to affirmation of the ratio of that order. These judgments were given in different contexts to reconsider the ground in subsequent appeal coming up before the Tribunal to lay down the law in other pending cases. In the present case, the appellant's appeal itself has been dismissed and the Tribunal's judgment has been confirmed by the Apex Court. That is, it is only in cases of other similar nature which come up for consideration before the Tribunal, in which case, the Tribunal can rehear in circumstances where SLP has not been entertained. Situation in this case being different in as much as the appellant's own appeal has been dismissed by the Apex Court and confirmed the Tribunal's judgment. Therefore, al .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates