TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 774
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der No. 804/2010-EX, dated 23-11-2010 [2011 (267) E.L.T. 101 (Tribunal)]. The Miscellaneous Application No. E/M/783/2011 has been filed for addition of one more para as para 16 in the ROM application. The new para sought to be added to the ROM application mentions that while the impugned order of the lower Authority had also resulted in illegal order of the confiscation and levy of redemption fine and both the orders of the confiscation and redemption fine being unsustainable had been challenged in the appeal, but the Tribunal's order is silent on the same. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri R. Santhanam, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that while in the impugned order of the lower Appellate Authority,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecord for which the impugned order needs to be recalled and the matter needs to be heard afresh for passing appropriate orders after hearing both the sides. 4. Shri Nagesh Pathak, the learned Senior Departmental Representative, opposed these applications emphasising that there are no mistakes which are patent from record, that what the appellant seeks is re-evaluation of evidence, which is not permitted by filing an ROM application and that there is no merit in the ROM application filed by the appellant. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. So far as miscellaneous application No. 783/2011 is concerned, the same is for addition of an additional point in the RO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o adjournment request. As such, it appears that the appellants are not interested in pursuing their appeals. Consequently, all the three appeals are dismissed on the ground of non- prosecution." Excise ROA Application No. 164/2009 in 4225/04 dated 13-11-2009. "Heard the Director of the Applicant Company in person and the learned DR for the respondent. 2. Considering the facts disclosed in the application, sufficient cause is revealed for non-appearance of the representative of the applicants at the relevant time when the matter was called out and dismissed, and hence the application is allowed and appeal No. E/4225 of 2004 is restored to the Board and directed to be listed for hearing on 8th December 2009. Party present has ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., we find that the criteria laid down in the Apex Court's judgment in the case of CCE, Calcutta v. ASCU Ltd. reported in 2003 (151) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.), that a mistake apparent on the face of record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or where two reasons are possible, is not satisfied in this case. Similarly, the plea that passing of the order after three months from the date of hearing is contrary to the law laid down in case of Anil Roy v. State of Bihar (supra) is not something which can be treated as mistake apparent from record as this is a point on which two views are possible. Therefore, we hold that there is no mistake apparent from record in our dec....