TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (11) TMI 490
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....63/2000-D dated 22-2-2000. The ROM application was received in the Registry on 9-8-2000 and was registered as E/ROM/130/2000-D. It has been prayed therein that the Tribunal's Final Order dated 22-2-2000 be recalled and rectified, and the appeal be re-considered in the light of the submissions made in their ROM application. The main argument taken in the ROM application is that due to inadvertence and bona fide mistake, in the Memo of Appeal filed before the Tribunal, the documents, which were selected for filing with the appeal for correlation of manufacture and export during the relevant period, were not filed, and instead the documents, which were eliminated being not relevant to the period in question, got filed (refer para 11 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....export it cannot be unequivocally held that the same goods as were manufactured by them, were exported." He also found fault with the Tribunal's Order with regard to the claim for drawback as referred to in para 5 of the said order. In reply, Smt. Rashida Hussain, SDR submitted that in the ROM application, the applicants have sought to make a new case and that there was no apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal. The findings of the Commissioner of Central Excise, who had adjudicated the matter, were categorical that the goods manufactured had not actually been exported and that what had been shown to have been exported had no correlation with the goods, which are the subject-matter of the present proceedings. She also submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r level best to meet with all the requirements and submitted necessary classification list procured B-1 Bond and followed all other formalities for subsequent clearances. 23. The case, at worse, against the applicants was that they were unaware of the technical formalities of clearances of such goods for export from the factory and had inadvertently omitted to follow the procedure prescribed for clearances of the goods for export but the fact is that the goods which had been exported were not in dispute and were even established." 5. They have sought to make-out a new case that on the ground that the relevant documents could not be annexed with their Appeal Memo. In para 11 of the ROM application, they have argued as under:- "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adjudicating authority were "totally contrary and incongruous". The Tribunal had examined the pleadings of the appellants and had arrived at a considered view. What the appellants in nut shell had now pleaded through the present ROM application is that they had not been able to place their case in right perspective. Such a pleading could not form the basis for recall of the order validly passed after full consideration of the issues involved. Under the plea of rectification, no new order could be passed. In this connection, we may refer to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Dinkar Khindria v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 77 (Tribunal - Larger Bench), wherein in para 5, the Tribunal had held that the rectificati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Supreme Court in para 11 of their judgment in the case of Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Dy. Commissioner - AIR 1964 (SC) 1372 had held as under :- "11. What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September, 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an "error apparent on the face of the record". The fact that on the earlier occasion the court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an "error apparent on the face of the record", for ....