2001 (11) TMI 843

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r regarding demand of duty from the appellants was maintained and only penalty was reduced. 2. The learned Counsel has contended that there is a mistake apparent on the face of the final order of the Tribunal as provisions of Rules 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules regarding time and manner of the payment of duty on removal of the goods from the factory premises, were not attracted to the case of the appellants who were 100% EOU, and their case was covered by sub-rule 2 of Rule 100A of the Rules, but the Bench did not take the note of this provision and committed mistake in confirming the order of the Collector demanding duty from the appellants on the goods (tiles) captively consumed by them in the factory. 2.  On the ot....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the plea of the appellants that they were not liable to pay duty on the removal of the excisable goods for captive consumption, had been considered, in details in the final order. In the face of that order, the second ROM filed by the appellants on the same grounds is obviously not maintainable. In this context, reference may be made to [2001 (138) E.L.T. 203 (T) = 2001 (75) ECC-266] wherein it has been observed that the second ROM against the impugned order is not maintainable. The contention of the Counsel that since according to the appellants that very mistake which they pointed out in their earlier ROM still persists in the impugned final order of the Tribunal, the second ROM is maintainable, cannot be accepted. The alleged mistake, po....