9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is an apparent error on the face of Final order No. A 964/2002-NB(SM), dated 9-8-2002. The final order ibid does not reflect consideration of the submissions made by the appellants' Counsel before the Bench at the hearing stage on 25-7-2002. It is stated that the Counsel had advanced certain arguments and cited certain decisions in support of the case on merits and that a synopsis of such argument ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel, in this connection, has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhukar v. Sangram (AIR 2001 SC 2171). The learned Counsel also relies on the decision of this Tribunal (Two Member Bench) in West Coast Industrial Gases v. CCE [1998 (104) E.L.T. 478]. 3. The learned DR submits that the operative part of the final order indicates that the view contained in that part of the order was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Industrial Gases (supra) should apply. That decision on a similar ROM application is to the effect that non-consideration of judicial precedent cited before the Tribunal will constitute an apparent error if the final order of the Tribunal does not disclose consideration of such judicial precedent. On a perusal of the aforesaid synopsis, I find that the case law cited therein was not examined by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
