TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (2) TMI 258
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - Heard. 2. The appellants have moved the present ROM application seeking rectification of mistake in the impugned final order No. 98/02-C dated 9-5-2002 vide which their appeal was dismissed. The ground made out for seeking rectification in the application is that, the issue of limitation specifically raised by them in the grounds of app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alleging that the demand was time-barred as there was no suppression of material facts by them from the Department, but the same had not been considered. In the case of Richardson & Cruddas Ltd. v. CCE. Mumbai-I, 2002 (145) E.L.T. 168 (T) = 2002 (49) RLT 239 (CEGAT-Mum.), it has been observed by the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal that non-consideration of the plea made in the appeal memo is a mistak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....loride with mixture of other salts and is unfit for human consumption, whereas the stand taken up by the Revenue is that, the residue material in question falls under Tariff Heading 3842 being residue product of Chemical and Allied Industries not elsewhere specified. 6. The adjudicating authority no doubt initially did not accept the classification as propounded by the appellants. But it is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he residue material came into existence, to the Department. According to their belief, the residue materials were classifiable under Tariff Heading 2501, whereas the Department wanted classification under Tariff Heading 3824. This dispute between the parties was set at rest only by the Tribunal ultimately vide final order dated 7-12-2000, referred to above. In these circumstances, it is difficult ....