TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (8) TMI 141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Respondents. [Order per : G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)]. - This is an application purporting to be under sub-section (2) of Section 35C of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to amend the Final Order No. 248/94-C, dated 30-8-1994 passed by this Tribunal in A. No. E/4006/92-C with a view to rectify the alleged mistake said to be apparent from the record. 2. Arguing on the application ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e said alternative plea. He also submitted that for the subsequent period the benefit of lower rate has been given by the authorities below. 3. In reply it was contended by Shri Sharad Bhansali, Ld. SDR, that the alternative case of the appellants regarding the re-determination of duty amount at a lower rate in the event of the failure of the appellants on merits was never argued before the Bench....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....averment in the present application that the said alternative case of the appellants regarding the re-determination of a duty amount at a lower rate was argued before the Bench hearing the appeal, Shri Dave, Ld. Counsel admitted that it is true that there is no such averment and left the matter to the discretion of the Bench. 5. Considered. From the Final Order No. 248/94-C, dated 30-8-1994 passe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case was not argued during the hearing of the appeal on merits as it is the discretion of the appellants or his counsel to argue or not to argue a point, though, taken up in the Memorandum of Appeal as a ground of appeal. It is settled law that while exercising powers of rectifying the mistake, if any, under sub-section (2) of Section 35 C of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, we cannot reopen a ....