9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esides relying on the several decisions under the erstwhile tariff particular reference was also invited to decision in the case of M/s. Diesel Component Works v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 648 (T) = 2000 (40) RLT 641 (CEGAT) in support of the contention that the goods in question merit classification under CSH 8432 only and consequently entitled to the benefit of exemption. This point was also vehemently urged during hearing on 10-12-2003. While the Hon'ble Bench has referred to this case law in Para 5 of the impugned order, there was no specific finding as to its non-applicability to the instant case is given as evidenced from Para 10 of the order. Another point urged before the Bench on 10-12-2003 was relating to the time bar. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h there may conceivably be two opinions. It has been held that a decision on a debatable point of law cannot be a "mistake apparent from the record". He also relied on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in case of Elpro International v. CCE, Pune - 2002 (150) E.L.T. 180 (Tri. - LB) wherein it was held that whether error has been committed by Tribunal in not considering the question of law regarding time bar and applying the ratio of various decisions, cannot be called an error apparent on record since ratio of decisions are to be ascertained after detailed examination of the judgements and after hearing the parties concerned, therefore, the ROM is not maintainable in the instant case. He stated that the point of law has been r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ries was referred to during the hearing. The case laws which were referred to by the appellants during the hearing and the issues argued during the hearing are on record from where it is clearly established that neither the case law of the AMCO Batteries was referred to nor revenue neutrality was pleaded. The thing which was neither pleaded nor referred to cannot be a part of the order and application for rectification of mistake on such grounds for a case which was neither referred to nor argued cannot be taken or it cannot be considered as mistake. Regarding reliance placed by the applicants on the observations of Justice K. Sreedharan, then Hon'ble President of the CEGAT and Member V.K. Asthana in Final Order No. 2913, dated 16-11-99 reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
