TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (9) TMI 658
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - None has come present on behalf of the applicants who have moved this ROM application. No request for adjournment has been also received from them. We find from the record that earlier on number of occasions, the ROM application had been adjournment on the request of the counsel. It appears that the applicants are not interest in pursuing the ROM a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellants that they were selling yarn without dressing". These observations, according to the learned Counsel, are factually not correct. Similarly, another alleged mistake pointed out by the learned Counsel is that, that the alternative submission of the applicants for the benefit of Notification No. 84/95 had been wrongly interpreted and taken by the Tribunal while deciding the case. The le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not the yarn to which alone the exemption applied and this aspect has not been also considered by the Tribunal. 6. The learned SDR, on the other hand, has submitted that all the contentions raised by the learned Counsel do not fall within the ambit/scope of the ROM application. According to him, it would only amount to re-hearing of the appeal on merits which is not permissible under the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e made basis for recalling the final order. In this regard, reference may be made to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Calcutta v. A.S.C.U. Ltd., 2003 (151) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) = 2003 (54) RLT 607, wherein the scope of the ROM application has been defined. It has been observed that a mistake apparent on the face of the record, must be an obvious and patent mistake. It cannot be ....