2006 (10) TMI 285

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l, Advocate and Mrs. Rukmani Menon, for the Appellant. Shri K. Sambi Reddi, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - These ROM applications pertain to different Final Orders and they are taken up together for the disposal as the same are not maintainable in law. 2. In the case of M/s. Deprecon Engineering Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal disposed of the appeals by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ered in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 1993 (68) E.L.T. 479 (Tribunal). This Larger Bench judgment has been followed by the Tribunal's Chennai Bench in the case of Kumar Power Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad [2001 (138) E.L.T. 212 (Tri. - Chennai)]. The learned Counsel further submits that the Final Order has already been ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion. Hence the second ROM application is also not sustainable and the same is rejected. 5. In the case of C.C., Mangalore v. Sanjeev Singh Chadda, the appeal was allowed by the Final Order No. 1035/2005, dated 1-7-2005. Being aggrieved with this order, the Revenue moved a ROM application which was rejected by the Misc. Order No. 194/2006 dated 30-1-2006. The present ROM application is aga....