TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1238
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unds mentioned in the application. He mainly contended that appellant brought out all their submissions and also relied several case law. However, while passing the final order, the Tribunal has not discussed their points and also not countered their case laws. He further submits that though the defence points were brought out in their appeal, but not considered by the Tribunal or discussed their contentions. Therefore, there is mistake apparent on record. He also submits that Tribunal held that Horn Controller was part of horn, whereas they have never advanced this argument. He further submits that non-discussion of their grounds and non-consideration of decisions cited by the appellant is also to be considered as mistake apparent on recor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndia) P.Ltd. 2011 (270) ELT 625 (SC) (2) CCE Calcutta Vs A.S.C.U. Ltd. 2003 (151) ELT 481 (SC) (3) V. Ramakrishna Rao Vs CC Chennai 2011 (267) ELT 293 (Mad.) (4) CCE Pondicherry Vs CESTAT 2014 (299) LET 166 (Mad.) 4. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and perused the application seeking rectification of mistake in the final order dt.20.11.2014 of the Tribunal. Vide final order dt.20.11.2014, this Bench upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal. The appellant mainly contended in the grounds of ROM application that this Tribunal has not considered the case laws relied by the appellant and also that the Bench has not given findings on the appellant's contentions. It is pertinen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts on which there may conceivably be two opinions. It has been also held that a decision on a debatable point of law cannot be a mistake apparent from the record. If one looks at the subsequent order passed by the CESTAT in pursuance of the rectification application, it is very clear that the CESTAT re-appreciated the evidence and came to a different conclusion than the earlier one. At an earlier point of time, the CESTAT came to a conclusion that the company to which the respondent-assessee sold its goods was an inter-connected company. In the circumstances, according to the CESTAT, the decision of the department to appoint a Cost Accountant to ascertain value of the goods manufactured by the assessee was considered to be just and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al view taken earlier in pursuance of a rectification application. In our opinion, the CESTAT could not have done so while exercising its powers under Section 35C(2) of the Act, and, therefore, the impugned order passed in pursuance of the rectification application is bad in law and, therefore, the said order is hereby quashed and set aside. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs." The ratio of the Apex Court decisions are squarely applicable to the present case. Further, the Hon'ble Court of Madras in the case of V. Ramakrishna Rao Vs CC Chennai (supra) considered Section 129B(2) of Customs Act and Rule 41 of CESTAT (Procedures) Rules, 1982 with regard to powers of CESTAT to recall the order in the predeposit order not challeng....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ule 41, the same cannot be recalled. The purpose of Rule 41 is not to nullify the order where finality has been reached in the proceedings. Therefore, Rule 41 does not come to the rescue of the petitioners. 15. In my considered opinion, if at all the petitioners have any grievance regarding the orders passed dispensing with only 25% of the demanded amount under Section 129-E of the Act, the petitioners would have done well by challenging the said orders in the manner known to law provided they were of the view that they had a valid ground under Section 129-E of the Act to get pre-deposit of the entire duty amount demanded dispensed with. Without doing so, it is not at all open for the petitioners to file applications subsequently u....