2002 (1) TMI 1239

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Appellant. Shri B.B. Sarkar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - This application seeks to correct an error claimed to be apparent on the record in the Tribunal's order under reference. In that order, the Tribunal had held that the money credit available by Notification 231/87, as it stood on 1-3-1989, prior to its amendment on 20-3-1990, would not be ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in the appeal, which even if not argued before it, Tribunal should have considered. It would then follow that the benefit of the exemption notification would be available to the ethyl acrylate. This is a mistake apparent on the record and therefore requires correction. The judgement of the Supreme Court in Jain Engineering Company v. CCE - 1987 (32) E.L.T. 3 is cited in support. 3. The Tr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under Heading 39.06. No such literature however was produced before the Bench, which heard the matter or is referred to in the grounds of appeal. The statement that ethyl acrylate is a monomer, is not supported by any evidence. We do not think, it is unreasonable or wanting in knowledge on the part of the members of the Tribunal to suggest that they would not be expected to know of their own that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... would be available to ethyl acrylate classifiable under Heading 29.16. If that were the object of the amendment, it should have omitted Heading 39.06 and substituted Heading 29.16. But it did not. It continued to show both the headings against it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that ethyl acrylate would be classifiable either under Heading 39.06 or under Heading 29.16. Possibl....