2002 (1) TMI 559

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Shri D.N. Choudhary, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - M/s. East India Udyog Ltd. have filed this ROM application stating that two issues were raised before the Tribunal and the Tribunal in the impugned order only decided one of the issues and did not decide the other issue [1998 (99) E.L.T. 422 (Tri.)]. 2. Arguing the ROM, Shri Bipin Garg, ld. Counsel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the appellants have already been sufficiently punished by denial of the substantial benefit of Modvat amounting to Rs. 8,85,441/-." 3. Ld. Counsel referred to para 8 of the findings of the Tribunal in the impugned order and submits that this para deals only with the imposition of penalty and not with the amount of credit disallowed. 4. He, therefore, prays that the mistake may be ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... minor matter of procedural detail". 6. Ld. DR therefore submits that these remarks and observations of the Tribunal do not only cover the penalty aspect but also the denial of Modvat credit. He, therefore, submits that there is no mistake in the order of the Tribunal. He, therefore, prays that the ROM may be rejected. 7. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2) as it stood at that time and Rule 57F(3) as it presently stands clearly provides for the procedure. In this factual situation we find considerable force in the ld. SDR's contention that non-compliance of the said rule cannot be treated as a failure to comply with a minor matter of procedural detail. The argument of the ld. Counsel for the appellants that the figures of production of transformer....