Revenue's ROM application rejected for introducing new evidence post-appeal.

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application regarding Final Order No. 56180/2013-EX(BR), which allowed the appellant's appeal on merits and limitation. The Revenue's attempt to introduce a letter listing capital goods/inputs not previously submitted during the appeal process was deemed unacceptable. As the letter was not before the Tribunal during the appeal, it was not considered in the decision-making process, leading to the rejection of the ROM application.

---

---

Issues:
Rectification of mistake application regarding Final Order allowing appeal on merits and limitation.

Analysis:
The rectification of mistake application was filed by the Revenue concerning Final Order No. 56180/2013-EX(BR), dated 12-4-2013, where the appellant's appeal was allowed on merits and limitation. The Tribunal had observed that the waste and scrap sold by the appellant derived from capital goods without availing any credit, thus no duty payment was necessary. This conclusion was based on the statement of the appellant's authorized representative and the lack of evidence from the Revenue.

The Revenue presented a letter dated 14-6-2006 in the current application, listing all capital goods/inputs for which the appellant had taken credit. Notably, the show cause notice was issued on 24-4-2002, the Order-in-Original was issued on 13-1-2004, and the Order-in-Appeal was passed on 26-5-2005. The letter in question was not part of any of these proceedings and was not submitted to the Tribunal during the appeal. Therefore, the attempt by the Revenue to introduce this letter into the case records was deemed unacceptable. Since the letter was not before the Tribunal during the appeal process, it was not considered in the decision-making, rendering the Revenue's request for rectification of the final order baseless.

Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the Rectification of Mistake (ROM) application and rejected it. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court, maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

---