2004 (1) TMI 444 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants re-opening for limitation plea, stresses thorough examination of all arguments in final order.

SHAMVIK GLASSTECH LTD. Versus commissioner of CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III

The Tribunal allowed the application for re-opening the matter and scheduled a fresh hearing to address the plea of limitation, emphasizing the importance ... Rectification of mistake - Plea of limitation Issues:1. Consideration of plea regarding non-applicability of the extended period of limitation in the final order of the Tribunal.Analysis:The judgment revolves around the issue of the plea regarding the non-applicability of the extended period of limitation not being considered in the final order of the Tribunal. The applicant contended that there was an obvious error on the face of the record as the plea had not been addressed. The learned Counsel highlighted that the plea had been specifically raised in the appeal memorandum and the synopsis filed during the appeal hearing. Despite the absence of explicit recording of the plea in the Tribunal's order, the applicant sought re-hearing of the appeal based on this ground.The opposition to the prayer came from the learned SDR, who argued that there was no evidence to suggest that the plea was actually argued during the proceedings. The SDR emphasized the practice of dictating orders in the Court, implying that it was the responsibility of the appellants to bring attention to any missed arguments or findings during the proceedings. Consequently, the SDR urged for the dismissal of the application, asserting that no error existed in the Tribunal's order.Upon careful consideration of the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal acknowledged that the plea concerning the time bar had indeed been raised by the appellants in their appeal and the synopsis submitted during the hearing. Despite the absence of a specific finding on this issue in the Tribunal's order, the Tribunal recognized the necessity to delve into this plea. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the application for re-opening of the matter and scheduled the appeal for a fresh hearing to address the plea of limitation on the specified date.This judgment underscores the importance of ensuring that all raised pleas and arguments are adequately addressed and recorded in the final order of the Tribunal. It also highlights the Tribunal's duty to thoroughly examine all relevant issues, even if they were not explicitly dealt with in the initial order, to uphold the principles of justice and fairness in legal proceedings.