1995 (2) TMI 164

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....M.K. Jain, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)]. - This is an application filed by the applicants under Section 35 C of the CESA for the Rectification of Mistake. 2. Shri G. Shiva Dass, the ld. Advocate appearing for the applicants submitted that the mistake has crept in the order as the penalty was not imposable under Rule 151 of the Central Excise Rules, o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... leviable under Rule 151, the penalty imposed under Rule 151 is maintainable in law. The ld. Advocate submitted that since show cause notice in this case has been issued on 29-9-1979 proposing imposition of penalty under Rule 151, when the said rule was not applicable to unmanufactured tobacco, accordingly penalty under Rule 151 is also not sustainable. He contended that in terms of Rule 139 of Ce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....E.L.T. 116 (Tri.) = 1990 (15) ETR 189. He drew our attention to the later case wherein it was held that Notification 264/67-C.E. was an independent Notification where it was in fact an amended notification, the same actually amended the Notification 136/67-C.E. This error had influenced the outcome of the judgment and therefore, the view taken on Notification No. 264/67-C.E. in the order is an ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. To rectify a mistake under Section 35-C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, not only it must be a mistake but also mistake apparent from the record. The application filed by the appellants is in the nature of review petition. Review is not permissible. Tribunal has no power to review its own order. We concur with the arguments ad....